Cattle Cleanliness from the View of Swedish Farmers and Official Animal Welfare Inspectors

The first protocol for assessing the welfare of dromedary camels (Camelus dromedarius) kept under nomadic pastoralism

There is no protocol to measure the welfare level of dromedary camels (Camelus dromedarious) kept under pastoralism-the predominant husbandry system of this species. This study therefore aimed to develop and describe a protocol for measuring welfare levels in dromedary camels kept under nomadic pastoralist conditions-. The indicators for each welfare principle (i.e., Good Feeding, Good Housing, Good Health, and Appropriate Behavior) were tailored to the specific conditions of camel pastoralism, drawing from the currently available protocol for assessing welfare in dromedary camels kept in intensive and semi-intensive systems. This adaptation was achieved using a structured literature search and Expert Knowledge Elicitation (EKE). The developed protocol, covering animal-, resource-, and management-based indicators, comprises two assessment levels: 'Caretaker-Herd level' and 'Animal level'. The Caretaker-Herd level is a face-to-face interview of about 10 min including 16 questions, spit into the four welfare principles, and a visual observation of applied animal handling practices. The 'Animal level' encompasses a behavioral observation and a visual clinical inspection of randomly selected individual dromedary camels, about 5 min/camel. The 'Animal level' includes 27 welfare indicators displayed for each welfare principle. The present study also includes the score for each indicator, the model for aggregating indicators' scores into compound indices for each welfare principle (PAI), and how to classify the herds based on the PAIs or to produce an overall welfare index for each herd. Even if the proposed protocol needs to be applied, refined, and validated, it is a first step toward a standardized method to collect data related to dromedary camel welfare kept under pastoralism. This framework may ultimately guide herd managers, animal health practitioners, experienced advisers, and lawmakers in fostering optimal conditions and proposing welfare standards for dromedary camels in pastoralist settings.

Loss of a grooming enrichment impacts physical, behavioural, and physiological measures of welfare in grazing beef cattle

Pasture-based beef cattle are raised in a range of production environments. Some paddocks may contain trees and other objects that allow for grooming, hence being naturally enriching, whilst others may be barren without these opportunities. Additionally, it is not uncommon for cattle to move between these enriched and barren environments as part of routine management. While the benefits of enrichment are well studied, how this 'enrichment loss' impacts cattle welfare as access to stimuli is removed is unknown. This trial assessed the impacts of the loss of an enriching object (grooming brush) on grazing beef cattle welfare and production characteristics. When grooming brush access was blocked, cattle became dirtier, showed reduced average daily gain, and had elevated faecal cortisol metabolites, although this varied according to the degree of initial individual brush use. Additionally, allogrooming and grooming on other objects were reduced when access to the brush was returned, potentially indicating a rebound effect. These results demonstrate that the loss of adequate grooming objects can impair the overall welfare of grazing cattle; however, further work is needed to determine exactly which natural or artificial objects provide adequate grooming opportunities.

Dairy cattle welfare - the relative effect of legislation, industry standards and labelled niche production in five European countries

The only common European Union (EU) legislation set up specifically to ensure the welfare of dairy cattle is for calves. As a consequence, there is wide diversity in how dairy cattle welfare is ensured in EU countries. A few countries have legal requirements for dairy cattle welfare, while in others, it is left to industry standards or niche production requirements, typically linked to various premium labels. In this paper, we compared animal welfare provisions in dairy cattle production across five countries with different combinations of legislative and other approaches: Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Firstly, we aimed to map the diversity of animal welfare initiatives. Secondly, we used the Benchmark method of expert valuations and weightings of the relative importance of individual welfare provisions. We found that Denmark and Sweden have the highest level of dairy cattle welfare provisions as measured by the Benchmark method, partly due to high legislative welfare requirements, followed by the United Kingdom, which has an extensive industry standard with very high uptake. Germany and the Netherlands, on the other hand, have lower levels of documented welfare provisions, and correspondingly a Benchmark score closer to a baseline defined by legal requirements at EU level. We also found differences in what elements of animal welfare were focussed on. Some initiatives emphasised fulfilling the social needs of cattle, while others focused more on space and freedom to move. Also, the countries with the highest Benchmark score had a relatively high level of production of organic and other specialty dairy products. We found the effect of national legislation or ambitious industry standards on dairy cattle welfare to be much larger than previous studies have found in either pigs or poultry. At a time when the EU is considering stepping up its efforts to improve animal welfare in terms of common minimum standards, the results of this study could have important policy implications. The diversity in the level of dairy cattle welfare standards found across countries may speak in favour of having shared minimum standards, both at EU level and globally. However, even among countries with a similar Benchmark score, we found a difference in the kinds of welfare provisions at work, which may make full harmonisation of standards more challenging.

Development of a benchmarking tool to assess the welfare of dairy cattle on small-scale farms

Public concern about the welfare of farm animals and the livestock industry's awareness of the need to improve animal welfare have led to the implementation of new tools designed to meet this objective. Especially in the case of small-scale farms in marginalized areas, the lack of available data specifically for assessing welfare led to the present study. Its aim was to use animal- and resource-based indicators that are representative of small-scale farms, to establish an index and develop a benchmarking tool that can be used to dynamically evaluate the welfare of cattle on farms with different husbandry systems and provide farmers, veterinarians, extension officers, and stakeholders with reliable information that can be used as a decision support tool. For this reason, 1,891 cows from 204 herds housed in freestall (n = 111) and tiestall (n = 93) husbandry systems in South Tyrol (Northern Italy) were evaluated. The results showed that 17.6% of herds (36 farms) had an average score below 60 (out of 100), which means that immediate intervention should be adopted to improve welfare. South Tyrolean dairy farms performed well in terms of lameness, skin alterations, avoidance behavior, number and space of lying areas, and dystocia occurrence scores, whereas water supply, cow cleanliness status, claw conformation, and getting-up behavior offered significant potential for improvement. Significant differences were observed between housing systems scoring less than 60 out of 100 points in 9.9% (n = 11) and 26.9%, (n = 25), of the herds kept in freestalls and tiestalls, respectively. A slight difference was found when comparing the percentage of herds with high scores, which corresponded to 30.6% (n = 34) of herds housed in freestalls and 22.6% (n = 21) of herds housed in tiestall housing systems. In addition, it was shown that animals reared on farms with tiestalls more often had problems with body condition, cleanliness, and skin alterations. All individual welfare indicators in the top 25% of herds had scores above 80, indicating that this may be an attainable target for freestall and tiestall herds, respectively, to promote good dairy cow welfare. The overall aim must be to adopt measures to increase the scores on all farms closer to this level.

Swedish dairy farmers’ perceptions of animal welfare inspections

Farmers today must comply with animal welfare legislation and often one or more private standards. This makes the number of regulations quite comprehensive and the control arena more complex, with several different animal welfare inspections and audits taking place at farm level. This study investigated perceptions among dairy farmers in Sweden of the official animal welfare inspections and the private Arla and KRAV audits, both separately and in relation to each other, and examined associated factors that could potentially influence their perceptions. An electronic questionnaire was developed and answered by 216 Swedish dairy farmers during spring 2021. The respondents in general acknowledged the need for animal welfare inspections, but had rather diverse perceptions of the actual inspections and inspectors, reporting both positive and negative experiences. They reported more negative experiences of official and Arla inspections than of KRAV (organic farming) inspections and most did not believe that inspections had improved animal welfare on their farm. Most of the respondents called for better coordination between the different inspection types. Most farmers reported being very worried before an official or Arla inspection, which was related to their more negative perceptions of these inspections. Other factors associated with farmers’ perception of the inspections were e.g., acceptance of a regulation, the perceived necessity of an inspection, satisfaction with the inspector’s competence, manner, and behavior, perceived fairness of treatment, and whether non-compliances were recorded. The farmers perceived official inspections as more negative if the inspector was a young woman, if there was more than one inspector present, and if the inspection was not pre-announced. These findings indicate a need for objective and accurate communication regarding different animal welfare regulations and inspections. To achieve greater trust and lower concerns among farmers about animal welfare inspections, all stakeholders need to be involved in communication.

Perception of animal welfare and its certification system by Brazilian consumers and dairy farmers

The practices adopted in dairy farms can positively or negatively affect the perception of consumers. To meet consumer expectations and improve the productivity of dairy farms, a welfare certification system has recently been initiated in Brazil. In this research communication we describe the perceptions of Brazilian consumers and farmers regarding the implementation of welfare certification systems and the most common practices that affect animal welfare on dairy farms. For this purpose, two semi-structured questionnaires were used: one applied to 409 consumers and the other to 158 dairy farmers. The results demonstrate that consumers are concerned with the adoption of welfare practices in animal husbandry at dairy farms, mainly on topics related to movement restriction and cow-calf separation. Thus, the majority of consumers state that they are willing to pay more for welfare-certified dairy products. In addition, most dairy farmers are interested in adopting a welfare certification system, especially if it could add value to the raw milk sold to industries. Veterinarians and animal scientists are important for disseminating animal welfare recommendations, and the consequences of its improper adoption need to be emphasized. Finally, dairy farms need improvements regarding environmental hygiene, thermal conditions, animal husbandry, health, and milking processes. In conclusion, consumers and farmers are interested in welfare systems and their certification, and there is a need for stakeholders to make welfare certification a reality in the Brazilian dairy supply chain.

Thirty Years of Changes and the Current State of Swedish Animal Welfare Legislation

Simple Summary

Sweden is often cited as a leading country in animal welfare and related legislation, but some recent changes in the national legislation are seen as lowering the animal welfare requirements in order to improve the competitiveness of Swedish farmers. In this study, we analysed suggested changes to the Swedish welfare legislation between 1988 and 2019 relating to horses, cattle and pigs, including the written motivations, the written stakeholder responses and the actual changes to the final regulations. We used a sample of 77 legal requirements to assess in depth whether the animal welfare level was affected by these changes in the legislation. The results showed that the animal welfare requirements in Sweden for cattle, pigs and horses increased overall during the 30-year study period, but that a number of specific requirements had been relaxed to satisfy interests other than animal welfare. Thus, the new requirements should be evaluated more fully in order to determine whether they serve their purpose in practice.

Abstract

Sweden is often seen as a leading country in animal welfare and legislation, but some recent amendments to the legislation are perceived as relaxing animal welfare requirements in order to improve the competitiveness of the relevant industry and of farmers. In this study, we analysed the suggested and actual changes in the Swedish national animal welfare regulations relating to horses, cattle and pigs between 1988 and 2019 and the consequences for the intended animal welfare level. The regulations and amendments, including the proposals, the written motivations, the stakeholders’ written responses to the proposed amendments and the final amendments, were scrutinised in detail. A sample of 77 requirements was then selected to assess whether and how the animal welfare level was affected by these legislative changes. The results indicated that the animal welfare protection level for cattle, pigs and horses increased overall during the 30-year period, but that a number of specific requirements had been relaxed to meet objectives other than animal welfare. It was more difficult to determine whether animal welfare improved in practice during the same period, due to the lack of systematic evaluations of the consequences of amending the regulations. Future evaluations are needed to evaluate the outcome of new legislative requirements and to monitor whether they serve their purpose in practice.

Managing Animal Welfare in Food Governance in Norway and Sweden: Challenges in Implementation and Coordination

Simple Summary

Animal welfare is an important issue in society, and having a strong animal welfare legislation is per se important. However, in addition to a strong legislation, it is necessary to create a system that can enforce the legislation and to have a public administration in place in order to achieve a coordinated implementation. Both Norway and Sweden have received some criticism for their coordination of animal welfare control efforts. However, they have reacted to this criticism in different ways. Norway has centralised the coordination, making the Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA) solely responsible for animal welfare control. Sweden, on the other hand, has instead focused on developing better guidelines to be used by the 21 regional County Administration Boards in order to improve uniformity. In this study, we have compared the Norwegian and Swedish ways of coordinating animal welfare control and identified challenges and relevant organisational preconditions for achieving uniform and consistent compliance. The results show that Sweden’s organisation may need more coordination between multiple organisational units, while Norway has better preconditions for achieving uniformity in animal welfare administration. However, in Norway, the safeguards for the rule of law might be an issue, due to NFSA acting as de facto “inspector”, “prosecutor” and “judge”.

Abstract

A key issue in food governance and public administration is achieving coordinated implementation of policies. This study addressed this issue by systematically comparing the governance of animal welfare in Norway and Sweden, using published papers, reports, and legal and other public information, combined with survey and interview data generated in a larger research project (ANIWEL). Governing animal welfare includes a number of issues that are relevant across different sectors and policy areas, such as ethical aspects, choice of legal tools, compliance mechanisms and achieving uniform control. Based on the challenges identified in coordinating animal welfare in Norway and Sweden, relevant organisational preconditions for achieving uniform and consistent compliance were assessed. The results showed that Sweden’s organisation may need more horizontal coordination, since its animal welfare management is divided between multiple organisational units (Swedish Board of Agriculture, National Food Agency and 21 regional County Administration Boards). Coordination in Norway is managed solely by the governmental agency Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA), which has the full responsibility for inspection and control of food safety, animal health, plant health, as well as animal welfare. Thus, Norway has better preconditions than Sweden for achieving uniformity in animal welfare administration. However, in Norway, the safeguards for the rule of law might be an issue, due to NFSA acting as de facto “inspector”, “prosecutor” and “judge”.