Performance Indicates Animal State of Being: A Cinderella Axiom?1

Does animal welfare influence dairy farm efficiency? A two-stage approach

This article investigated how process-based animal welfare indicators (PAI) affected the technical efficiency of German dairy farms. A sample of 115 North-Rhine Westphalian dairy farms was used to estimate their technical efficiency with data envelopment analysis. A censored regression model was then applied to quantify the effects of PAI on technical efficiency. The results indicated that in particular a higher percentage of cow losses, a higher replacement rate, and a longer calving interval had, at their respective mean, a negative marginal effect on the technical efficiency of the sample farms. In contrast, a lower age of first calving, a higher in-milk performance, and a higher somatic cell count were positively correlated with technical efficiency. Some of the PAI followed a polynomial trend (i.e., their influence on technical efficiency did not have a constant sign, and levels for minimum/maximum technical efficiency were present). The minimum efficiency score at constant returns to scale was obtained when farmers had cow losses of 0.4%, a calving interval of 430d, and a cell count of 146,000 per milliliter. However, maximum technical efficiency was obtained at a milk yield of 9,796 kg per cow and year. The corresponding amounts in case of technical efficiency under variable returns to scale were at a similar level, except that milk yield showed a positive linear influence on technical efficiency. Moreover, technical efficiency under variable returns to scale was positively correlated with the fat content of milk. The lowest level of technical efficiency was reached at a fat content of 4.1%. Subsequently, we found that efficient dairy farms did not always correspond with recommended values concerning animal welfare criteria. Finally, the results showed that the assumption of a monotone effect direction of PAI on farm efficiency was inappropriate, and that this issue would need to be addressed in future research.

Epidemiology of influences on the performance in broiler flocks--a field study in Germany

To establish which factors influence performance and bird welfare during a fattening period and to identify those factors to be investigated during routine monitoring of farms by veterinary authorities, a questionnaire-based field study was conducted in districts of Lower Saxony, Germany, with the highest density of broiler chickens. Mortality and BW of farms with different stocking densities (≤33, 33.1-39, and >39 kg/m(2)) were investigated. Analyses of 79 farms with 176 stables and 634 fattening periods revealed that flock mortality and BW appeared to be greatly influenced by weather conditions and litter material. In general, it is an advantage to grow broilers under warm weather conditions. However, the longer the fattening period lasts the more important it becomes that the outside weather conditions are not too warm. Therefore, weather conditions should be considered when determining the length of the fattening period, especially before the background of the growing demands of broilers regarding ventilation, absorption of feces by the litter material, and so on. Apart from the length of the fattening period, the weather conditions determine the choice of the litter material, as well. Under cold-humid weather conditions, it is better to use litter material other than wood shavings. In particular in older buildings it is not possible to provide the required conditions, which results in a lower weight gain the longer the fattening period lasts. The study identified differences in the final BW of flocks, which indicate different (farm) management policies. Regardless of the underlying policy, the performance of a fattening period can be improved by optimizing the farm management according to the prevalent conditions. Future routine monitoring, which should be cost effective regarding personnel and finance, should be generally risk based and consider weather conditions, litter material, the age of the building, and the length of the fattening period.

Is welfare all that matters? A discussion of what should be included in policy-making regarding animals

Policy-making concerned with animals often includes human interests, such as economy, trade, environmental protection, disease control, species conservation etc. When it comes to the interests of the animals, such policy-making often makes use of the results of animal welfare science to provide assessments of ethically relevant concerns for animals. This has provided a scientific rigour that has helped to overcome controversies and allowed debates to move forward according to generally agreed methodologies. However, this focus can lead to policies leaving out other important issues relevant to animals. This can be considered as a problem of what is included in welfare science, or of what is included in policy. This suggests two possible solutions: expanding animal welfare science to address all ethical concerns about animals’ interests or widening the perspective considered in policymaking to encompass other important ethical concerns about animals than welfare. The latter appears the better option. This requires both a ‘philosophy of animal welfare science’, a ‘philosophy of decision-making about animals’, and greater transparency about what is included or excluded from both animal welfare science and the politics of animal policy.

Is ‘a life worth living’ a concept worth having?

A recent FAWC report introduced ‘a life worth living’ as a useful concept in farm animal welfare discussions and policy. But what does this concept mean? And is it a useful one? This paper extends FAWC's approach in several ways. It firstly provides an account of the concept of a life worth living in more detail, in relation to current animal welfare thinking, such as experiences and quality of life. It then describes how the concept might be applied in animal welfare management decisions and in setting standards for regulations and Farm Assurance schemes. The paper identifies several advantages to the concept: it is animal-based, intuitively understandable, and has direct prescriptive force in decision-making. But the concept also has certain limitations, especially that it is potentially complex and subjective and that it cannot include all ethically relevant concerns about farm animal welfare. Nevertheless, the paper concludes that the concept may become a useful addition to welfare dialogue, and finishes by identifying the core areas where further work is necessary.

How welfare is measured and why scientists do it differently

Scientists studying the welfare of animals use approaches that best answer the research question. The research question, experimental approach, variables selected for measurement, and data interpretation can differ depending on the scientist's disciplinary training and his or her values framework. For example, a veterinary medical scientist may value measures of biological functioning over other measures of animal welfare, whereas an applied ethologist may place greater emphasis on behavioral measures. Animal care and husbandry recommendations, guidelines and standards, assessment strategies, and laws can reflect these differences with respect to the importance attached to the accommodation of different aspects of animal well-being.

Animal welfare--scientific approaches to the issues

Nonhuman animal welfare is of significant public interest, globally and within the United States. Value-based judgments are intrinsic to animal welfare assessment, according to the relative weighting of factors associated with animal performance, health, affective states, and natural living. The concept of animal welfare is consistent with the scientific method because questions are open to deductive reasoning, formation of hypotheses and predictions, and collection and analysis of empirical data. Multidisciplinary techniques used in the laboratory are helpful to understanding a whole animal response to particular situations and are especially important in interpretation of data about affective states. Epidemiological techniques can be used to identify prevalence and risk factors associated with particular animal welfare challenges in field conditions and are particularly useful for motivating change and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions intended to improve animal welfare on farms. Compromised animals who are affected by injury or illness represent a vulnerable population with unique animal welfare challenges for which laboratory and field-based studies are needed.