Dairy vs beef production - expert views on welfare of cattle in common food production systems.

Consumers' views and concerns about the welfare of farm animals may play an important role in their decision to consume dairy, meat and/or plants as their primary protein source. As animals are killed prematurely in both dairy and beef industries, it is important to quantify and compare welfare compromises in these two sectors before the point of death. Seventy world-leading bovine welfare experts based in 23 countries were asked to evaluate the likelihood of a bovine to experience 12 states of potential welfare concern, inspired by the Welfare Quality® protocol. The evaluation focused on the most common beef and dairy production systems in the experts' country and was carried out separately for dairy/beef calves raised for red meat, dairy/beef calves raised for veal, dairy/beef calves raised as a replacement, and for dairy/beef cows. The results show experts rated the overall likelihood of a negative welfare state (i.e. welfare risk) to be higher in animals from dairy herds than from beef herds, for all animal categories, regardless of whether they were used to produce milk, red meat or veal. These findings suggest that consuming food products derived from common dairy production systems (dairy or meat) may be more harmful to the welfare of animals than consuming products derived from common beef production systems (i.e. from animals solely raised for their meat). Raising awareness about the linkage between dairy and meat production, and the toll of milk production on the welfare state of animals in the dairy industry, may encourage a more sustainable and responsible food consumption.

Soiling of Pig Pens: A Review of Eliminative Behaviour.

This is a comprehensive review on the pigs' normal eliminatory behaviour (i.e., defaecation and urination) and pen soiling. This review is aimed primarily at solving issues with pen soiling in current systems, and ultimately at the future design of a well-functioning pig toilet, which we intend to elaborate on in a subsequent publication. In this paper, first, normal elimination is described in relation to what is known about its phylogeny, ontogeny, causation, and function, i.e., according to Tinbergen's four why questions concerning animal behaviour. Then, pen soiling is described as if it were a medical disorder, highlighting its importance, aetiology, symptoms, diagnosis, pathogenesis, treatment, and prevention. Due to its negative consequences in terms of animal welfare, health, workload, and environmental emissions, possible methods to address pen soiling in current systems are described. Probably, pigs do not choose a specific place to eliminate but rather choose the most comfortable place for resting, and avoid eliminating there. We identified four main strategies to reduce pen soiling: (1) reducing the suitability of the designated elimination area to be used for other functions, especially resting or thermoregulation; (2) improving the suitability of other functional areas in the pen to be used for their specific function, such as resting and activity; (3) reducing the suitability of other functional areas to be used for elimination; and (4) improving the suitability of the elimination area for elimination. These prevention strategies and the encompassing disease framework provide a structured approach to deal with pen soiling in existing systems and to support the future design, development, and implementation of a well-functioning pig toilet that can help to achieve some of the main goals of modern pig production, namely reducing environmental emissions as well as substantially improving pig welfare.

Expert opinion on metal chains and other indestructible objects as proper enrichment for intensively-farmed pigs.

EC Directive 2001/93 requires that all pigs have access to proper investigation and manipulation materials. Intensively farmed pigs in Europe are frequently provided with a short metal chain with or without an indestructible object attached to the chain. To date authorities are regarding this as proper enrichment, perhaps with (in)direct reference to the RICHPIG model as a justification. However, it has become increasingly clear that the chains do not provide proper enrichment, and that adding an indestructible object to the end of the chain may even reduce rather than improve pig welfare. To test this hypothesis an expert survey was conducted containing 26 more or less compound questions. On a scale from 0 to 10 experts specified their level of agreement with the hypothesis, the prevalence and welfare scores of nine indestructible enrichment materials. In total 36 experts, mostly pig-welfare scientists, responded (response rate: 39%). Indestructible objects are less prevalent in countries that provide straw (like Sweden and the UK) and outside the EU (US). They are more prevalent in the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Finland, while the prevalence seems to be low in Spain. Balls, wood and pipes were provided most frequently: hard wood especially in the UK (as specified in farm assurance); indestructible balls and pipes in Germany and the Netherlands. The experts' score for agreement with the hypothesis was only 4.6 on average (scale 0-10; n = 25). Enrichment materials, ranked from high to low welfare score, were grouped in 5 significance levels as indicated by different superscripts based on Wilcoxon signed rank tests: Branched chains (5.1a), Chain on the floor (4.4b), Hard wood (3.7bc), Pipe (3.5c), Bare chain (3.3c), Short chain (3.1d), Small ball (2.8d), Big ball (2.5d), and Chain hanging too high (1.3e). Branched chains scored significantly better than all other indestructible materials and its welfare score (5.1 on average) was close to the pre-defined level of acceptability (5.5 on a scale from 0, worst, to 10, best). The welfare benefits of adding balls, pipes or hard wood to the metal chain were marginal, and well below what the experts considered acceptable enrichment. The branched-chains design, by contrast, appears to be the most viable alternative. It involves providing a longer chain, i.e. with the free end reaching to floor level, adding 'branches', i.e. several short chains ending at the nose height of the pigs, and providing more chains per pen (i.e. 1 branched chain per 5 pigs). Branched chains should be implemented widely and in the short term as a first step towards, and benchmark for, providing proper enrichment to intensively-farmed pigs.

Broiler welfare trade-off: A semi-quantitative welfare assessment for optimised welfare improvement based on an expert survey.

In order to support decision making on how to most effectively improve broiler welfare an innovative expert survey was conducted based on principles derived from semantic modelling. Twenty-seven experts, mainly broiler welfare scientists (n = 20; and 7 veterinarians), responded (response rate 38%) by giving welfare scores (GWS, scale 0-10) to 14 benchmarking housing systems (HSs), and explaining these overall scores by selecting, weighing and scoring main welfare parameters, including both input and output measures. Data exploration followed by REML (Linear Mixed Model) and ALM (Automatic Linear Modelling) analyses revealed 6 clusters of HSs, sorted from high to low welfare, i.e. mean GWS (with superscripts indicating significant differences): 1. (semi-natural backyard) Flock (8.8a); 2. Nature (7.7ab), Label Rouge II (7.4ab), Free range EU (7.2ab), Better Life (7.2ab); 3. Organic EU (7.0bc), Freedom Food (6.2bc); 4. Organic US (5.8bcd), Concepts NL (5.6abcdef), GAP 2 (4.9bcd); 5. Conventional EU (3.7de), Conventional US (2.9ef), Modern cage (2.9abcdef); 6. Battery cage (1.3f). Mean weighting factors (WF, scale 0-10) of frequently (n> = 15) scored parameters were: Lameness (8.8), Health status (8.6), Litter (8.3), Density (8.2), Air quality (8.1), Breed (8.0), Enrichment (7.0) and Outdoor (6.6). These did not differ significantly, and did not have much added value in explaining GWS. Effects of Role (Scientist/Vet), Gender (M/F) and Region (EU/non-EU) did not significantly affect GWS or WF, except that women provided higher WF than men (7.2 vs 6.4, p<0.001). The contribution of welfare components to overall welfare has been quantified in two ways: a) using the beta-coefficients of statistical regression (ALM) analyses, and b) using a semantic-modelling type (weighted average) calculation of overall scores (CalcWS) from parameter level scores (PLS) and WF. GWS and CalcWS were highly correlated (R = ~0.85). CalcWS identified Lameness, Health status, Density, Breed, Air quality and Litter as main parameters contributing to welfare. ALM showed that the main parameters which significantly explained the variance in GWS based on all PLS, were the output parameter Health status (with a beta-coefficient of 0.38), and the input parameters (stocking) Density (0.42), Litter (0.14) and Enrichment (0.27). The beta-coefficients indicated how much GWS would improve from 1 unit improvement in PLS for each parameter, thus the potential impact on GWS ranged from 1.4 welfare points for Litter to 4.2 points for Density. When all parameters were included, 81% of the variance in GWS was explained (77% for inputs alone; 39% for outputs alone). From this, it appears that experts use both input and output parameters to explain overall welfare, and that both are important. The major conventional systems and modern cages for broilers received low welfare scores (2.9-3.7), well below scores that may be considered acceptable (5.5). Also, several alternatives like GAP 2 (4.9), Concepts NL (5.6), Organic US (5.8) and Freedom Food (6.2) are unacceptable, or at risk of being unacceptable due to individual variation between experts and farms. Thus, this expert survey provides a preliminary semi-quantified decision-support tool to help determine how to most effectively improve broiler welfare in a wide range of HSs.

Exploration Feeding and Higher Space Allocation Improve Welfare of Growing-Finishing Pigs.

Lack of environmental enrichment and high stocking densities in growing-finishing pigs can lead to adverse social behaviors directed to pen mates, resulting in skin lesions, lameness, and tail biting. The objective of the study was to improve animal welfare and prevent biting behavior in an experiment with a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design on exploration feeding, stocking density, and sex. We kept 550 pigs in 69 pens from 63 days to 171 days of life. Pigs were supplemented with or without exploration feeding, kept in groups of seven (1.0 m²/pig) or nine animals (0.8 m²/pig) and separated per sex. Exploration feeding provided small amounts of feed periodically on the solid floor. Skin lesion scores were significantly lower in pens with exploration feeding (p = 0.028, p < 0.001, p < 0.001 for front, middle, and hind body), in pens with high compared to low space allowance (p = 0.005, p = 0.006, p < 0.001 for front, middle and hind body), and in pens with females compared to males (p < 0.001, p = 0.005, p < 0.001 for front, middle and hind body). Males with exploration feeding had fewer front skin lesions than females with exploration feeding (p = 0.022). Pigs with 1.0 m² compared to 0.8 m² per pig had a higher daily gain of 27 g per pig per day (p = 0.04) and males compared to females had a higher daily gain of 39 g per pig per day (p = 0.01). These results indicate that exploration feeding might contribute to the development of a more welfare-friendly pig husbandry with intact tails in the near future.

A 'meta-analysis' of effects of post-hatch food and water deprivation on development, performance and welfare of chickens.

A 'meta-analysis' was performed to determine effects of post-hatch food and water deprivation (PHFWD) on chicken development, performance and welfare (including health). Two types of meta-analysis were performed on peer-reviewed scientific publications: a quantitative 'meta-analysis' (MA) and a qualitative analysis (QA). Previously reported effects of PHFWD were quantified in the MA, for variables related to performance, mortality and relative yolk sac weight. The QA counted the number of studies reporting (non-)significant effects when five or more records were available in the data set (i.e. relative heart, liver and pancreas weight; plasma T3, T4 and glucose concentrations; relative duodenum, jejunum and ileum weight; duodenum, jejunum and ileum length; and villus height and crypt depth in duodenum, jejunum and ileum). MA results indicated that 24 hours of PHFWD (i.e. ≥12-36 hours) or more resulted in significantly lower body weights compared to early-fed chickens up to six weeks of age. Body weights and food intake were more reduced as durations of PHFWD (24, 48, 72, ≥84 hours) increased. Feed conversion rate increased in chickens up to 21 and 42 days of age after ≥84 hours PHFWD in comparison with chickens fed earlier. Total mortality at day 42 was higher in chickens after 48 hours PHFWD compared to early fed chickens or chickens after 24 hours PHFWD. First week mortality was higher in chickens after ≥84 hours PHFWD than in early fed chickens. The MA for relative yolk sac weight was inconclusive for PHFWD. The QA for plasma T3, T4 and glucose concentrations indicated mainly short-term decreases in T3 and glucose in PHFWD chickens compared to early fed chickens, and no effects of PHFWD on T4 concentrations. Relative weights of liver, pancreas and heart were lower after PHFWD, but only in the first week of life. A retarded development of gut segments (duodenum, jejunum and ileum) was found in the first week of life, measured as shorter, lower relative weight, and lower villus height and crypt depth. It is concluded that 48 hours (≥36-60 hours) PHFWD leads to lower body weights and higher total mortality in chickens up to six weeks of age, the latter suggesting compromised chicken welfare, but effects of PHFWD on organ development and physiological status appear to be mainly short-term.

Overall welfare assessment of laying hens: comparing science-based, environment-based and animal-based assessments.

To increase the validity of evaluations and facilitate expansion and maintenance of assessment systems, we constructed a database of studies on the welfare of laying hens around the world. On the basis of this database, we devised a science-based welfare assessment model. Our model includes measurements, levels and weightings based on the scientific studies in the database, and can clarify the advantages and disadvantages of housing systems for laying hens from the viewpoint of the five freedoms. We also evaluated the usefulness of our model by comparing it with environment-based Animal Needs Index (ANI), another science-based model called FOWEL, and animal-based measurements. Our model showed that freedom from injury, pain and disease, and freedom from discomfort were more secure in the cage system, while non-cage systems scored better for natural behavior and freedom from fear and distress. A significant strong-positive correlation was found between the animal-based assessment and the total scores of ANI (rs = 0.94, P < 0.05), FOWEL (rs = 0.99, P < 0.05) or our model (rs = 0.99, P < 0.05), which indicate that these different approaches to welfare assessment may be used almost interchangeably to 'measure' a common property ('overall laying hen welfare'). However, assessments using our model and FOWEL were more sensitive than ANI and can be applied to cage systems, which suggest that our model and FOWEL may have added value.

Expert opinion as 'validation' of risk assessment applied to calf welfare.

BACKGROUND: Recently, a Risk Assessment methodology was applied to animal welfare issues in a report of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on intensively housed calves. METHODS: Because this is a new and potentially influential approach to derive conclusions on animal welfare issues, a so-called semantic-modelling type 'validation' study was conducted by asking expert scientists, who had been involved or quoted in the report, to give welfare scores for housing systems and for welfare hazards. RESULTS: Kendall's coefficient of concordance among experts (n = 24) was highly significant (P < 0.001), but low (0.29 and 0.18 for housing systems and hazards respectively). Overall correlations with EFSA scores were significant only for experts with a veterinary or mixed (veterinary and applied ethological) background. Significant differences in welfare scores were found between housing systems, between hazards, and between experts with different backgrounds. For example, veterinarians gave higher overall welfare scores for housing systems than ethologists did, probably reflecting a difference in their perception of animal welfare. Systems with the lowest scores were veal calves kept individually in so-called "baby boxes" (veal crates) or in small groups, and feedlots. A suckler herd on pasture was rated as the best for calf welfare. The main hazards were related to underfeeding, inadequate colostrum intake, poor stockperson education, insufficient space, inadequate roughage, iron deficiency, inadequate ventilation, poor floor conditions and no bedding. Points for improvement of the Risk Assessment applied to animal welfare include linking information, reporting uncertainty and transparency about underlying values. CONCLUSION: The study provides novel information on expert opinion in relation to calf welfare and shows that Risk Assessment applied to animal welfare can benefit from a semantic modelling approach.