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

Using Expert Elicitation for ranking hazards, promoters and animal-based measures for on-farm welfare assessment of indoor reared beef cattle: an Italian experience

On-farm welfare assessment gives the opportunity to monitor and improve the quality of the animal life on the farm. In order to build the first Italian public standard for the welfare of indoor reared beef cattle, a list of 25 potential hazards and 22 potential promoters of beef cattle welfare was judged by a group of national experts by taking into account their negative or positive impacts on the welfare-state of the target population. In addition, the experts were asked to rank a list of 11 animal-based measures for identifying the most appropriate and important for measuring negative welfare outcomes in beef cattle. Based on experts' ratings, an "impact score" (IS_overall) was calculated for the proposed measures. Management hazards and promoters were ranked to have a greater impact on beef cattle welfare than housing factors. Keeping cattle in large (≥ 40 animals) and heterogeneous groups obtained the highest IS_overall among the proposed hazards (IS_overall = 5.54), followed by the presence of animals without free access to drinking water (IS_overall = 4.39) and the use of high-concentrate corn silage diets (concentrate > 80% and fiber < 6%) (IS_overall = 4.39). On the other hand, housing animals in small (≤ 20 animals) and homogeneous groups (IS_overall = 5.41), checking them at least twice a day (IS_overall = 4.62) and rearing cattle in loose housing systems with access to an outdoor area/pasture (IS_overall = 4.27) were ranked among the top 3 promoters. Concerning animal-based measures, experts scored lameness, severe respiratory diseases, body condition scoring and mortality rate to be measures most important for assessing serious welfare impairment.

Positive Welfare in Science and Society: Differences, Similarities and Synergies

Societal and scientific perspectives of animal welfare have an interconnected history. However, they have also, somewhat, evolved separately with scientific perspectives often focusing on specific aspects or indicators of animal welfare and societal perspectives typically taking a broader and more ethically oriented view of welfare. In this conceptual paper, we examine the similarities and differences between scientific and societal perspectives of positive welfare and examine what they may mean for future discussions of animal welfare considered as a whole. Reviewing published studies in the field we find that (UK and Republic of Ireland) farmers and (UK) members of the public (i.e., society) typically consider both negatives (i.e., minimising harms) and positives (i.e., promoting positive experiences) within the envelope of positive welfare and prioritise welfare needs according to the specific context or situation an animal is in. However, little consideration of a whole life perspective (e.g., the balance of positive and negative experiences across an animal's lifetime) is evident in these societal perspectives. We highlight how addressing these disparities, by simultaneously considering scientific and societal perspectives of positive welfare, provides an opportunity to more fully incorporate positive welfare within a comprehensive understanding of animal welfare. We suggest that a consideration of both scientific and societal perspectives points to an approach to welfare which accounts for both positive and negative experiences, prioritises them (e.g., by seeing positive experiences as dependent on basic animal needs being fulfilled), and considers the balance of positives and negatives over the lifetime of the animals. We expand on this view and conclude with its potential implications for future development of how to understand and assess animal welfare.

The Importance of Farm Animal Health and Natural Behaviors to Livestock Farmers: Findings From a Factorial Survey Using Vignettes

There is increasing interest in enabling positive experiences, not just minimizing negative experiences, to improve the welfare of farmed animals. This has influenced the growth of private agri-food standards and supported arguments to integrate animal welfare into policy on sustainability and climate change. However, much research finds that farmers predominantly focus on the minimization of negatives (i.e., health issues). This may impact the positioning of farmers within these wider societal debates, affecting their social license to farm. It is thus important to better understand farmers' priorities relating to the minimization of negative factors (e.g., health issues) and the promotion of positive experiences (i.e., natural behaviors). A novel 2 × 2 factorial survey using vignettes, which experimentally manipulated health (health issues minimized/not minimized) and natural behavior (natural behaviors promoted/not promoted) provision, was completed by livestock farmers (n = 169), mostly with extensive systems, in the UK and Republic of Ireland. The majority (88%) considered “minimizing health issues” to be the most important factor for animal well-being. However, the overall welfare of animals was judged to be highest when both health and natural behaviors were supported. Several individual characteristics, including farming sector, production system, gender, belief in animal mind and business type influenced how participants judged the welfare of animals and the level of importance they gave to health and natural behaviors. Findings suggest that although farmers prioritize the minimization of health issues they want animals to be both healthy and able to express natural behaviors, and individual characteristics are important for understanding farmers' welfare-related judgements.

A New, Practical Animal Welfare Assessment for Dairy Farmers

Simple Summary

To determine the level of welfare on a dairy farm is a complex task. There is no protocol available that can serve as a ‘gold standard’. The Welfare Quality protocol is the most extensive one, but it takes about a full day to perform. We, therefore, examined if it would be possible to replace the time-consuming parts, like lengthy behavioural observations, with simple measurements in the environment. This resulted in a new Welfare Monitor that can be executed in 1.5 h on a farm with 100 cows. Welfare assessment was appreciated by the farmers, and they responded to advice for improvements on their farm. Besides promoting better welfare, this approach also led to a better financial result for the farms.

Abstract

The Welfare Quality^® assessment protocol (WQ) is the most extensive way to measure animal welfare. This study was set up to determine if resource-based welfare indicators, that are easier and faster to measure, could replace the more time consuming, animal-based measurements of the WQ. The WQ was applied on 60 dairy farms in the Netherlands, with good, moderate and poor welfare. The WQ protocol classified most farms (87%) as ‘acceptable’. Several of the animal-based measures of WQ correlated well with measures in the environment. Using these correlations, an alternative welfare assessment protocol (new Welfare Monitor) was designed, which takes approximately 1.5 h for a farm with 100 dairy cows. Because the opinion of farmers about welfare assessment is important if one wants to improve conditions for the cows at a farm, another objective of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the new Welfare Monitor for the farmer. Over two years, the farms were visited, and advice was given to improve the conditions at the farm. After the first welfare assessment and advice, farmers improved the conditions for their cows substantially. Farms where the category score had increased made more improvements on average than those that did not upgrade.

Animal welfare official inspections: farmers and inspectors shared concerns

Official inspections to check the compliance of farms with European legislation to protect farm animals are often perceived negatively by farmers. In addition, the inspections have a limited effect on improving farm compliance. We looked at the perceptions of both farmers and their inspectors about animal welfare and the inspections in a case study of dairy production in France. The identification of gaps and commonalities between both parties should help us to propose improvements in the inspection method by which inspections could more likely encourage compliance with animal welfare legislation. To achieve this aim, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 dairy farmers and their 19 inspectors. Both farmers and inspectors described animal welfare in terms of the state of the animal and of the living conditions and care provided to them. The majority of farmers found that the official checklist used by the inspectors is inappropriate to assess the welfare of their animals; inspectors themselves reported that they often use their own criteria and indicators (often based on the observation of animals) in addition to the official checklist. Both groups disagreed with some requirements of the legislation. These findings suggest that the content and background of the legislation to protect animals should be made clearer to both farmers and inspectors and that these two groups of actors should be involved in the definition of key points to be checked on farms, with special attention to animal-based indicators. All this could improve farmers' engagement with the results of the inspections and, hopefully, could lead to better compliance with legislation and improvements in animal welfare on farms.

Effect of welfare standards and biosecurity practices on antimicrobial use in beef cattle

Antimicrobial use (AMU) in livestock species and the associated antimicrobial resistance are a global concern, thus strategies for their reduction and a more judicious use are needed. Previous research has revealed a link between improved animal welfare, biosecurity and AMU reduction in pig and dairy sectors, however, little is known about the beef sector. This study aimed to investigate the impact of welfare standards and biosecurity on AMU in beef cattle. Data on performance traits and AMU were collected over a 3.5 year time from 27 specialised beef farms and a treatment incidence was calculated using the defined daily dose for animals. An on-farm assessment was carried out by assigning a score from 0 (very poor) to 100% (very good) to 3 sections: welfare, biosecurity and emergency management. The highest average score was obtained for the welfare section (76%) followed by emergency management (39%) and biosecurity (24%). This suggests that major focus on strategies for the implementation of biosecurity measures and emergency management is needed, due to the low scores reported. A statistically significant lower AMU was observed with improved level of welfare. These results may be helpful for farm benchmarking and highlight the importance of improved animal welfare for an efficient antimicrobial stewardship.

Factors that Influence Farmers' Views on Farm Animal Welfare: A Semi-Systematic Review and Thematic Analysis

Farm animal welfare (FAW) is a growing societal concern, reflected by over 30 years of research to inform policy and practice. Despite the wealth of evidence to improve FAW, implementation of good practice continues to be an issue. The role of the stakeholder, particularly farmers, is pivotal to FAW improvement. This semi-systematic review synthesizes the evidence published in the last 30 years, worldwide, to address two main questions "what do farmers think (farmer's general view) about farm animal welfare?" and "what are the factors that influence their thinking?". A thematic analysis was conducted to identify factors that influenced the implementation of FAW innovation. The main outcomes extracted from 96 peer-reviewed publications on a range of livestock species identified 11 internal factors including farmer knowledge, empathy, personality, values, and human-animal bond; 15 external factors including economic advantages, communication, time and labor influenced the perception of FAW. Farmers' knowledge and cost implications of FAW were the most frequently reported factors. The review further highlights the need for promoting interdisciplinary collaboration and stakeholder participation. This study suggests strategies to improve FAW, including tools to support behavioral changes amongst farmers.

What Are the Positives? Exploring Positive Welfare Indicators in a Qualitative Interview Study with Livestock Farmers

To support the furtherance of positive animal welfare, there is a need to develop meaningful and practical positive welfare indicators for on-farm welfare assessment. Considering the perspectives of farmers is arguably critical in this regard. Doing so helps ensure positive welfare indicators reflect farmers' existing welfare norms and attitudes and, are thus, of practical relevance to them. However, a key issue for such development is the dearth of knowledge on farmers' perspectives of positive welfare. To address this, this study uses qualitative interviews to directly examine livestock farmers' perspectives of positive welfare. Findings reveal that farmers describe elements of positive welfare which are broadly in line with indicators suggested in the positive welfare literature. These elements include animal autonomy, play, positive affect, positive human-animal relationships, social interaction, and appropriate genetic selection. Additionally, this study finds that farmers construct the reduction of negative aspects of welfare as their primary management concern and mostly construct positive welfare as arising indirectly from this. Insights into the importance that farmers of different sectors and systems give to different aspects of positive welfare indicators are also explored. The implications of these findings and the similitudes between farmers' perspectives and the positive welfare literature are discussed.

Test-retest reliability of the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for pigs applied to sows and piglets. Part 2. Assessment of the principles good feeding, good housing, and good health1

The present study aimed at testing the feasibility and on-farm test-retest reliability of the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for pigs applied to sows and piglets. The study was conducted on 13 farms in Northern Germany, which were visited 5 times by the same observer, and included 2 experimental setups: first, the complete Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for sows and piglets was applied to the farms. Second, additional assessments in the gestation unit considered all sows. The complete protocol assessments were used to evaluate the feasibility of the protocol. Furthermore, the data were analyzed with regard to on-farm test-retest reliability. The present publication focuses on the Welfare Quality principles good feeding, good housing, and good health, which are based on individual indicators (IN). The second experimental setup was utilized to verify the test-retest reliability of IN in the gestation unit with an increased number of animals under assessment. The test-retest reliability was calculated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), smallest detectable change (SDC), and limits of agreement (LoA). Farm visit 1 (F1; day 0) was set as a reference and compared with farm visits 2 to 5 (F2 to 5; day 3, week 7, month 5, month 10). The IN of the above-named Welfare Quality principles achieved mostly acceptable test-retest reliability (e.g., wounds on the body F1 to F4: RS 0.34 to 0.57, ICC 0.40 to 0.41, SDC 0.02 to 0.12, LoA [-0.03; 0.02] to [-0.09; 0.14]) in terms of the on-farm test-retest reliability. Poor test-retest reliability was detected for body condition score concerning the principle good feeding, for bursitis and panting in sows and for huddling and panting in piglets within the principle good housing, and finally for vulva lesions, metritis, and local infections in sows and for scouring and lameness in piglets in the principle good health. Variations among the farm visits, which resulted in poor test-retest reliability, may be explained by seasonal effects (panting), moving animals (bursitis, lameness, huddling), rare occurrences of diseases (metritis, local infections, scouring), and differently conditioned sow groups (body condition score). The second experimental setup confirmed the results for IN in the gestation unit. Thus, the reported test-retest reliability determines the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for sows and piglets to be a reliable approach to assess welfare in sows and piglets.

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.