A Prototype Tool to Enable Farmers to Measure and Improve the Welfare Performance of the Farm Animal Enterprise: The Unified Field Index

Influences on Perceived Feasibility of Animal-Based Measures in a Producer-Driven Welfare Benchmarking System

A voluntary, producer-driven welfare benchmarking system has been explored as a way of incentivising welfare improvement in pasture-based beef cattle and providing transparency and accountability to the industry. This study aimed to determine the acceptability and feasibility of measures for inclusion in a welfare benchmarking system and how this is influenced by respondents' attitudes and beliefs. A survey was disseminated online to Australian producers in July 2020. Producers were asked to indicate the welfare measures (n = 59) they thought most important to check to determine if cattle on pasture-based farms have a good quality of life (QOL) and the feasibility of collecting animal-based welfare data and completing a stockperson attitudes questionnaire. Basic demographic and attitude data were also collected. Responses from 274 producers were included (52% male) with median land size 340 Ha (range 4-500,000) and herd size 200 head (2-200,000). Feasibility was related to QOL attitudes for 11 of the 17 animal-based measures (p < 0.01-0.02). Feasibility was also related to land or herd size but was not affected by other demographics, such as gender. In all significant dependencies, feasibility was reported as greater in those who thought it important to check the corresponding welfare measure. Producers who rated QOL as very important were also more likely to perceive the collection of animal-based data as feasible. A well-designed and targeted programme to educate producers on why certain welfare measures are important will be crucial to increase uptake and retention in a voluntary producer-driven welfare benchmarking scheme.

Varying Opinions about Animal Welfare in the Australian Live Export Industry: A Survey

There is significant public interest in the Australian live animal export industry and a need to develop a program that can measure and monitor animal welfare throughout the supply chain. An online survey of stakeholder opinions of this industry and animal welfare measures was carried out in 2015 with 921 respondents: 30% from the public who identified as animal welfare advocates (AWAs); 44% from the public who did not identify as AWAs (general public; GP); 26% live export industry (LEI) workers. AWA and GP respondents expressed greater concern than LEI respondents for animal welfare throughout the supply chain but had less concern for animals at Australian feedlots than in other parts of the supply chain. The majority of AWA and GP respondents believed data collected on animal welfare should be made public and should be collected by independent welfare officers and used to regulate the industry and impose penalties for poor welfare. LEI workers believed that data should be confidential, collected by LEI workers and used by the industry to self-regulate. AWA and GP respondents rated the importance and practicality of a number of welfare indicators greater than LEI workers, while respondents shared an analogous view of the importance and practicality of these indicators. Results can be used to develop welfare assessments that ensure a better understanding between industry members and those not in the industry, while facilitating welfare improvements and promoting greater transparency for the live export industry.

Review of Livestock Welfare Indicators Relevant for the Australian Live Export Industry

Animal welfare is an important issue for the live export industry (LEI), in terms of economic returns, community attitudes and international socio-political relations. Mortality has traditionally been the main welfare measure recorded within the LEI; however, high mortality incidents are usually acted upon after adverse events occur, reducing the scope for proactive welfare enhancement. We reviewed 71 potential animal welfare measures, identifying those measures that would be appropriate for use throughout the LEI for feeder and slaughter livestock species, and categorised these as animal-, environment- and resource-based. We divided the live export supply chain into three sectors: (1) Australian facilities, (2) vessel and (3) destination country facilities. After reviewing the relevant regulations for each sector of the industry, we identified 38 (sector 1), 35 (sector 2) and 26 (sector 3) measures already being collected under current practice. These could be used to form a 'welfare information dashboard': a LEI-specific online interface for collecting data that could contribute towards standardised industry reporting. We identified another 20, 25 and 28 measures that are relevant to each LEI sector (sectors 1, 2, 3, respectively), and that could be developed and integrated into a benchmarking system in the future.

Use of benchmarking to monitor and analyze effects of herd size and herd milk yield on cattle health and welfare in Austrian dairy farms

The modernization and intensification of the dairy industry has led to larger herd sizes and higher milk production, both globally and in Austria. Benchmarking allows the monitoring of animal health and welfare as well as the identification of potential for improvement by comparing certain parameters with other farms with similar management environments. Using data from the Austrian routine recording system of various traits of milk production, fertility, and health, farmers and their veterinarians (with the consent of the farmer) can compare farm parameters with detailed data available from their district or state and ensure more efficient herd management. The aim of the present study was to provide an overview of dairy milk production in Austria based on the annual herd health reports and to examine the effects of herd size and milk production on fertility and health parameters. Annual herd health reports from all farms participating in the health monitoring system were considered, and analyses were conducted across breeds. A large variation between farms was observed. The results showed that, based on parameters of milk yield and herd size for the range of farms within this study, it cannot be concluded that these circumstances automatically lead to poor animal health. Farms with very small herd sizes differed significantly from those with larger herd sizes. Overall herd size effects were however small in Austria. Higher milk production based on a single farm does not necessarily cause more health and fertility problems; however, we detected a tendency for an increased risk of fertility, udder, and metabolic diagnoses. An active health management program might result in higher incidence rates for fertility or udder diagnoses, as a veterinary treatment might be economically superior if, for example, the calving interval can be shortened or the somatic cell count can be reduced. The results of the present study showed that it is advisable to use different benchmarks in combination for monitoring health, as well as for deciding on strategies to improve overall herd health management. Animal health reports on Austrian dairy cows are continuously being developed and new parameters integrated.

Welfare of beef cattle in Australian feedlots: a review of the risks and measures

The rising global demand for animal protein is leading to intensification of livestock production systems. At the same time, societal concerns about sustainability and animal welfare in intensive systems is increasing. This review examines the risks to welfare for beef cattle within commercial feedlots in Australia. Several aspects of the feedlot environment have the potential to compromise the physical and psychological welfare of cattle if not properly monitored and managed. These include, but are not limited to, animal factors such as the influence of genetics, temperament and prior health, as well as management factors such as diet, pen design, resource provision, pregnancy management, and stock-person attitudes and skills. While current industry and producer initiatives exist to address some of these issues, continuous improvements in welfare requires accurate, reliable and repeatable measures to allow quantification of current and future welfare states. Existing measures of welfare are explored as well as proxy indicators that may signal the presence of improved or reduced welfare. Finally, potential future measures of welfare that are currently under development are discussed and recommendations for future research are made.

Predation by Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) at an Outdoor Piggery

Simple Summary

Predation of piglets by red foxes is a significant risk for outdoor/free-range pork producers, but is often difficult to quantify. Using remote sensing cameras, we recorded substantial evidence of red foxes taking piglets from around farrowing huts, and found that piglets were most likely to be recorded as “missing” over their first week. These data suggest that fox predation contributed to the marked production differences between this outdoor farm and a similar-sized intensive farm under the same management, and warrant greater control of this introduced, invasive predator.

Abstract

Outdoor pig operations are an alternative to intensive systems of raising pigs; however for the majority of outdoor pork producers, issues of biosecurity and predation control require significant management and (or) capital investment. Identifying and quantifying predation risk in outdoor pork operations has rarely been done, but such data would be informative for these producers as part of their financial and logistical planning. We quantified potential impact of fox predation on piglets bred on an outdoor pork operation in south-western Australia. We used remote sensor cameras at select sites across the farm as well as above farrowing huts to record interactions between predators and pigs (sows and piglets). We also identified animal losses from breeding records, calculating weaning rate as a proportion of piglets born. Although only few piglets were recorded lost to fox predation (recorded by piggery staff as carcasses that are “chewed”), it is likely that foxes were contributing substantially to the 20% of piglets that were reported “missing”. Both sets of cameras recorded a high incidence of fox activity; foxes appeared on camera soon after staff left for the day, were observed tracking and taking live piglets (despite the presence of sows), and removed dead carcasses from in front of the cameras. Newly born and younger piglets appeared to be the most vulnerable, especially when they are born out in the paddock, but older piglets were also lost. A significant (p = 0.001) effect of individual sow identification on the weaning rate, but no effect of sow age (parity), suggests that individual sow behavior towards predators influences predation risk for litters. We tracked the movement of piglet carcasses by foxes, and confirmed that foxes make use of patches of native vegetation for cover, although there was no effect of paddock, distance to vegetation, or position on the farm on weaning rate. Trials with non-toxic baits reveal high levels of non-target bait interference. Other management options are recommended, including removing hay from the paddocks to reduce the risks of sows farrowing in open paddocks, and covering or predator-proof fencing the pig carcass pit. Results of this study will have increasing relevance for the expanding outdoor/free-range pork industry, contributing to best practice guidelines for predator control.