Non-Compliance and Follow-Up in Swedish Official and Private Animal Welfare Control of Dairy Cows

Can an animal welfare risk assessment tool identify livestock at risk of poor welfare outcomes?

If livestock at risk of poor welfare could be identified using a risk assessment tool, more targeted response strategies could be developed by enforcement agencies to facilitate early intervention, prompt welfare improvement and a decrease in reoffending. This study aimed to test the ability of an Animal Welfare Risk Assessment Tool (AWRAT) to identify livestock at risk of poor welfare in extensive farming systems in Australia. Following farm visits for welfare- and non-welfare-related reasons, participants completed a single welfare rating (WR) and an assessment using the AWRAT for the farm just visited. A novel algorithm was developed to generate an AWRAT-Risk Rating (AWRAT-RR) based on the AWRAT assessment. Using linear regression, the relationship between the AWRAT-RR and the WR was tested. The AWRAT was good at identifying farms with poor livestock welfare based on this preliminary testing. As the AWRAT relies upon observation, the intra- and inter-observer agreement were compared in an observation study. This included rating a set of photographs of farm features, on two occasions. Intra-observer reliability was good, with 83% of Intra-class Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) for observers ≥ 0.8. Inter-observer reliability was moderate with an ICC of 0.67. The AWRAT provides a structured framework to improve consistency in livestock welfare assessments. Further research is necessary to determine the AWRAT's ability to identify livestock at risk of poor welfare by studying animal welfare incidents and reoffending over time.

Are there risk factors commonly observed on Australian farms where the welfare of livestock is poor?

The objective of this study was to identify factors more commonly observed on farms with poor livestock welfare compared to farms with good welfare. Potentially, these factors may be used to develop an animal welfare risk assessment tool (AWRAT) that could be used to identify livestock at risk of poor welfare. Identifying livestock at risk of poor welfare would facilitate early intervention and improve strategies to promptly resolve welfare issues. This study focuses on cattle, sheep and goats in non-dairy extensive farming systems in Australia. To assist with identifying potential risk factors, a survey was developed presenting 99 factors about the farm, farmers, animals and various aspects of management. Based on their experience, key stakeholders, including veterinarians, stock agents, consultants, extension and animal welfare officers were asked to consider a farm where the welfare of the livestock was either high or low and rate the likelihood of observing these factors. Of the 141 responses, 65% were for farms with low welfare. Only 6% of factors had ratings that were not significantly different between high and low welfare surveys, and these were not considered further. Factors from poor welfare surveys with median ratings in the lowest 25% were considered potential risks (n = 49). Considering correlation, ease of verification and the different livestock farming systems in Australia, 18 risk factors relating to farm infrastructure, nutrition, treatment and husbandry were selected. The AWRAT requires validation in future studies.

Analysis of substantiated welfare investigations in extensive farming systems in Victoria, Australia

Substantiated incidents of poor welfare affecting cattle, sheep and goats (livestock) in non-dairy extensive farming systems continue to occur. This study sought to describe the common causes of poor welfare of livestock and the associated circumstances, by analysing 39 years of de-identified, livestock welfare investigation records. There were a total of 2179 alleged offenders (AOff), defined as individual/s that had an incident of poor welfare affecting livestock on at least one occasion. Approximately 27% of AOff were found to have poor welfare on more than one occasion. The majority of livestock welfare incidents were associated with neglect, more specifically, inadequate nutrition (56%), treatment (65%) and management/husbandry (83%). Records of malicious acts were rare (1%). In the analysis, cases were allocated to 10 animal welfare severity categories (AWSC) based on the number of incidents and visits, whether the AOff reoffended, or if the incident was ongoing and whether the welfare issue was likely to affect the whole herd. A significantly higher proportion of cases in the most severe AWSC had a failure to shear, mark, dip/drench, draft and wean/cull, were overstocked or were not providing proper and sufficient feed, compared to the least severe AWSC (P ≤ 0.05). Reoffending was significantly more likely when animals were found to be injured/unwell, recumbent, stuck in mud/yard/pen or in poor body condition, or when there was a failure to wean/cull, mark, dip/drench and draft. Some of the issues identified here may be risk factors more commonly identified on farms with poor livestock welfare.

Animal-based welfare indicators for dairy cows and their validity and practicality: a systematic review of the existing literature

Animal welfare is of increasing importance, with consumers preferring animal products made with ethical practices due to growing awareness. This shift highlights the need for reliable methods to evaluate welfare. This systematic review aims to assess the validity of current animal-based welfare indicators for dairy cows to aid farmers and agricultural professionals in evaluating and improving welfare amidst the lack of a clear legislative definition. The literature search spanned five databases: CAB Direct, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and Livivo, covering publications in English and German from 2011 to 2021. Specific search terms were employed, and abstracts were screened for relevance. Publications were categorized based on exclusion criteria, with a final verification process conducted by three independent scientists. Research highlights correlations between welfare measures, farm characteristics and innovative indicators like hair cortisol concentration. Farming systems and housing methods significantly affect welfare, with pasture-based systems generally resulting in reduced lameness and improved behavior. Proper housing design and management practices are important, as they influence indicators like lameness and cleanliness. Heart rate variability and heart rate monitoring provide insights into dairy cow stress levels during milking and other stressors, making them valuable for welfare assessment. Biomarker research emphasizes the need to balance productivity and health in breeding strategies, as high milk production alone does not indicate good welfare. Behavioral studies and the human-animal relationship are key to understanding welfare. Precision Livestock Farming offers real-time assessment capabilities, although validation is needed. Stress physiology is complex, and while cortisol measurement methods are promising, further research is necessary. Assessment tools like the Animal Needs Index and routine herd data analysis are valuable for identifying welfare concerns. Key findings highlight the WQ® protocol's effectiveness and versatility, the challenge of its time demands, and the DCF protocol's promise for more practical and efficient welfare assessments. Commercial animal welfare audits should prioritize easily observable indicators and herd records due to logistical constraints in measuring biomarkers or heart rate variability. This focus on easily accessible indicators, such as body condition score, lameness, claw health, cleanliness, and somatic cell count allows effective welfare assessments, enabling prompt action to enhance wellbeing.

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.

An analysis of substantiated complaints made about incidents of poor livestock welfare, in Victoria, Australia

Incidents of poor welfare on farm in Victoria, Australia, are generally identified during an investigation that follows receipt of a complaint. Using deidentified records of complaints received by the Victoria State Government between 2011 and 2020, this study aimed to describe the source, number and the relationship between rainfall/stock prices and substantiated welfare complaints (SWC). Only incidents involving non-dairy cattle, sheep and goats in extensive farming systems will be considered. The main source of complaints received by the Victorian Government is the general public. Almost half of all complaints were made for cattle (48%), 39% for sheep, 11% for mixed species, and 2% for goats. The number of SWC varied between months, each year and across the different regions of Victoria. The ratio of the actual mean rainfall of the last three seasons to the long-term mean of the last three seasons of rainfall (RL3SR) and livestock prices together were the best predictors of the total number of SWC (adjusted R square value for heavy lamb-RL3SR was highest (0.590), followed by merino lamb-RL3SR (0.588), goat-RL3SR (0.545) and steer-RL3SR (0.478) all were significant (p ≤ 0.05)). The rainfall by region and town were not good predictors of the number of SWC. There was a correlation between rainfall and the number of SWC, possibly due to changes in pasture availability. Favorable seasonal conditions however, were not protective of livestock welfare and it is likely a number of factors may be implicated.

Welfare of dairy cows

This Scientific Opinion addresses a European Commission's mandate on the welfare of dairy cows as part of the Farm to Fork strategy. It includes three assessments carried out based on literature reviews and complemented by expert opinion. Assessment 1 describes the most prevalent housing systems for dairy cows in Europe: tie-stalls, cubicle housing, open-bedded systems and systems with access to an outdoor area. Per each system, the scientific opinion describes the distribution in the EU and assesses the main strengths, weaknesses and hazards potentially reducing the welfare of dairy cows. Assessment 2 addresses five welfare consequences as requested in the mandate: locomotory disorders (including lameness), mastitis, restriction of movement and resting problems, inability to perform comfort behaviour and metabolic disorders. Per each welfare consequence, a set of animal-based measures is suggested, a detailed analysis of the prevalence in different housing systems is provided, and subsequently, a comparison of the housing systems is given. Common and specific system-related hazards as well as management-related hazards and respective preventive measures are investigated. Assessment 3 includes an analysis of farm characteristics (e.g. milk yield, herd size) that could be used to classify the level of on-farm welfare. From the available scientific literature, it was not possible to derive relevant associations between available farm data and cow welfare. Therefore, an approach based on expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) was developed. The EKE resulted in the identification of five farm characteristics (more than one cow per cubicle at maximum stocking density, limited space for cows, inappropriate cubicle size, high on-farm mortality and farms with less than 2 months access to pasture). If one or more of these farm characteristics are present, it is recommended to conduct an assessment of cow welfare on the farm in question using animal-based measures for specified welfare consequences.

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.

Swedish Trotting Horse Trainers’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare Inspections from Public and Private Actors

Simple Summary

Harness racing is the most common form of horse racing in Sweden. As public awareness of animal welfare is increasing, the welfare of these horses must be ensured. Trotting horse trainers in Sweden undergo an official animal welfare inspection by the County Administrative Board (CAB) and a private inspection by their own association, the Swedish Trotting Association (STA). This study investigated trainers’ perceptions of these different inspections using a digital questionnaire sent out during spring 2021. Of the 396 responding trainers, a majority reported quite positive experiences of both CAB and STA inspections. However, most perceived the STA inspections to be more valuable and the STA inspectors to be more competent than the CAB inspectors. Overall, the competence and manner of the inspector had a stronger association with trainers’ perceptions of an inspection than the results of the inspection. While trainers were generally satisfied with the control system, they would like better coordination between the different inspections.

Abstract

In Sweden, the County Administrative Board (CAB) and Swedish Trotting Association (STA) both perform animal welfare inspections of the premises of trotting horse trainers. The CAB inspection checks for compliance with the legislation, and the STA inspection checks for compliance with the private ‘Trotter Health Standard’, which mainly sets the same requirements as the legislation. This study investigated the views of trainers on these inspections both as separate events and in relation to each other. A digital questionnaire was sent out to trotting horse trainers in Sweden during spring 2021, and 396 trainers responded. Descriptive and statistical analyses were used to evaluate the responses. In general, the trainers reported positive experiences of both the CAB and STA inspections, but they had consistently more positive views about the private STA inspections than the official CAB inspections. The outcome of the inspections, i.e., non-compliance or not, did not affect trainers’ perceptions of the inspections, but inspectors’ knowledge, manner, and responsiveness had a strong effect. The trainers were generally satisfied with the current control system but would like better coordination between the different inspections.

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.

Invited review: The welfare of dairy cattle housed in tiestalls compared to less-restrictive housing types: A systematic review

Many dairy cattle worldwide are housed in tiestalls, meaning that they are tethered by the neck to individual stalls. On some farms, tied cattle are permitted seasonal access to pasture, but otherwise their movements are restricted compared with cows housed in freestall barns or other loose housing systems. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the scientific literature pertaining the welfare of tied dairy cattle through comparison with less-restrictive housing systems. Articles identified by PubMed and Web of Science underwent a 5-phase screening process, resulting in the inclusion of 102 papers. These papers addressed measures of welfare related to affective state, natural behavior, and health (with the lattermost category subdivided into hoof and leg disorders, lameness, mastitis, transition disease, and other diseases or conditions). Health was the most researched topic (discussed in 86% of articles); only 19% and 14% of studies addressed natural behavior and affective state, respectively. Our review highlights different health benefits for tethered and loose cattle. For example, tied cattle experience reduced prevalence of white line disease and digital dermatitis, whereas loose cattle experience fewer leg lesions and injuries. The prevalence of mastitis, transition diseases, and other conditions did not differ consistently across housing types. We found that the expression of certain natural behaviors, particularly those associated with lying down (e.g., time spent kneeling, unfulfilled intentions to lie down), were impaired in tiestalls. Articles addressing affective state found benefits to loose housing, but these studies focused almost exclusively on (1) physiological measurements and (2) cow comfort, a concept that lacks a consistent operational definition across studies. We call for future research into the affective state of tied cattle that extends beyond these explorations and employs more sophisticated methodologies.

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”.

Longitudinal national-level monitoring of on-farm broiler welfare identifies consistently poorly performing farms

A range of welfare outcome measures relating to on-farm welfare are monitored in UK slaughterhouses to check compliance with the European Broiler Directive. A national dataset from 438,155 batches of chickens between 2010 and 2014 and from 228,795 batches between 2016 and 2018 was analysed. The data contained information about 3.1 billion chickens. The highest mean proportion for a single condition was for ascites/oedema in 2016–2018 at 0.384%, affecting 3.9 million chickens/year sent to slaughter during that time, followed by abnormal colour/fevered at 0.324%, affecting 3.4 million chickens/year. Identifying farms most likely to have poor welfare is an important strategy for improving animal welfare overall, and for maximising the capacity for checking regulatory compliance when resources are limited. We found a greater proportion of broiler farms overall remained consistently in the best quartile (16.4%) rather than the worst quartile (6.6%). Farms that exceeded a Government ‘trigger’ threshold for poor welfare were significantly more likely to subsequently improve than ‘non-trigger’ farms, although they usually remained in the worst performing quartile of farms.

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

Dirty cattle have been commonly recorded in official animal welfare inspections in Sweden for years. The relevant authorities have initiated work to better understand the causes of dirty cattle, in order to improve compliance and standardize the grounds for categorizing a farm as non-compliant with welfare legislation when dirty animals are present. This study investigated the occurrence of dirty cattle in official animal welfare controls, on Swedish cattle farms, and examined farmers' views on the reasons for non-compliance and on key factors in keeping animals clean. The data used were collected by animal welfare inspectors at the county level during the regular official inspections of 371 dairy and beef cattle farms over two weeks in winter 2020. In addition to completing the usual inspection protocol, the inspectors asked farmers a set of questions relating to why their animals were clean or dirty. Dirty cattle were found on 49% of the farms inspected, but only 33% of the farms were categorized as being non-compliant with Swedish welfare legislation. According to inspectors and farmers, dirtiness in cattle depends mainly on management routines, which is a promising result since routines can be improved. The results also revealed a need for better guidance for inspectors and farmers on when dirtiness should be categorized as non-compliance with animal welfare legislation.

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.

Organic Dairy Cattle: Do European Union Regulations Promote Animal Welfare?

Animal welfare is an emerging concept in EU law; with the advent of specific regulations intending to protect animals. The approach taken by European lawmakers is to provide "minimum standards" for conventional farming; argued by some as failing to adequately protect animals. In contrast, the EU organic farming regulations aim to "establish a sustainable management system for agriculture" and promote "high animal welfare standards". The first aim of this review was to identify key areas where there are clear improvements in quality of life for dairy cattle housed under the EU organic regulations when compared to the conventional EU regulations. Using the available scientific evidence, our second aim was to identify areas where the organic regulations fail to provide clear guidance in their pursuit to promote high standards of dairy cattle welfare. The greater emphasis placed on natural living conditions, the ban of some (but unfortunately not all) physical mutilations combined with clearer recommendations regarding housing conditions potentially position the organic dairy industry to achieve high standards of welfare. However, improvements in some sections are needed given that the regulations are often conveyed using vague language, provide exceptions or remain silent on some aspects. This review provides a critical reflection of some of these key areas related to on-farm aspects. To a lesser extent, post farm gate aspects are also discussed.

Evaluation of Criminal Sanctions Concerning Violations of Cattle and Pig Welfare

Simple Summary

According to EU legislation, violations involving farm animal welfare need to be sanctioned. With this study, our aim was to assess criminal sanctions by Finnish district courts concerning cattle and pig welfare crimes. We found that small cattle farms were over-represented in court statistics. The most common sanctioned violations of cattle and pig welfare were the lack of cleanliness of premises and animals and inadequate feeding and watering. The violations were shown to have been continuing for a long time before a defendant stood trial for their actions. The penalties were lenient, i.e., the violations were not perceived as particularly blameworthy by the court. Veterinarians have a major role in initiating criminal procedures, collecting evidence, and evaluating the relevance of violations. Therefore, to improve the efficacy of criminal procedures, the police and prosecutors should work in close collaboration with veterinarians.

Abstract

EU legislation requires the violations of animal welfare standards to be sanctioned. Our aim was to evaluate criminal sanctions concerning violations of cattle and pig welfare on Finnish farms. We analyzed 196 court cases heard in Finnish district courts from 2011 to 2016. Almost all the cases (95%) concerned the violations of cattle welfare, of which 61% occurred on small farms. The lack of cleanliness and inadequate feeding and watering were the most common reported violations. Median time span from the start date of an offending to a judgement was slightly less than two years. Of the cases, 96% resulted in conviction. The court did not perceive the violations as being highly blameworthy as a small fine and a short conditional imprisonment were the most often imposed sanctions. A ban on the keeping of animals was used as a precautionary measure in half of the cases. Veterinarians were shown to have an important role in the initiation of criminal procedures, providing evidence for the police, and acting as witnesses. Therefore, it is crucial to achieve a well-functioning collaboration between veterinarians and the police and prosecutors. The expertise of these authorities on animal welfare legislation should also be emphasized to improve the efficacy of criminal procedures.

Welfare Challenges of Dairy Cows in India Identified Through On-Farm Observations

Simple Summary

India has the largest population of dairy cattle in the world, but little work has been done to objectively assess their welfare. Formal welfare assessment is needed to identify any welfare problems and inform solutions to these problems. Dairy cattle on 38 farms in Kerala, India, were observed using standardised welfare assessment protocols. The major welfare problems identified in this study were that all cows were tied to their housing on a rope < 1 m that attached to a halter that pierced the nasal septum, most farms did not provide cattle with unlimited access to water, and access to food was also limited. On half the farms, cattle were tied up inside for the whole day, and most of those given outdoor access were also tied when outside. These results show the need to encourage dairy farmers in India to stop tying their cattle, and to provide them with unlimited access to drinking water and a readier supply of a good healthy diet. Welfare assessment protocols were used successfully in this study, suggesting that they can and should be used regularly to assess cattle welfare in India. Making these changes could substantially improve the welfare of tens of millions of cattle.

Abstract

India has the largest population of dairy cattle in the world at over 48 million animals, yet there has been little formal assessment of their welfare reported. Through observations of dairy cows on 38 farms in Kerala, India, we aimed to investigate the welfare of these animals and the practicality of animal-based assessments within common farming systems. Substantial welfare challenges were identified. All cows were close-tied (less than 1 m length) via a halter that pierced the nasal septum when housed, which was for the entire day (50% of farms) or part thereof. When outside access was available, it was also usually restricted by close-tying, longline tether, or hobbling. Ad libitum water was only available on 22% of farms and food access was also restricted (mean of 4.3 h/day). Future work should focus on encouraging dairy farmers in India to improve the welfare of their dairy cattle by: ceasing to tie and tether cattle (or at least providing tied and tethered cattle with exercise opportunities); providing unlimited access to drinking water and a readier supply of food (especially quality green forage/fodder); cleaning housing more frequently; providing strategies to prevent heat stress; breeding cattle suited to environmental conditions and with increased resistance to heat stress; and carrying out welfare assessments more regularly using a validated protocol and rectifying the causes of poor welfare. Such changes could substantially improve the welfare of tens of millions of cattle.

Assessment of Welfare Problems in Finnish Cattle and Pig Farms Based on Official Inspection Reports

The competent authorities of the Member States of the European Union are required to perform animal welfare inspections on livestock farms. The data obtained from these official inspections performed in Finnish cattle and pig farms in 2010-2015 were used with the aim of estimating the prevalence of the most common non-compliances and identifying underlying risk factors. The prevalence of non-compliant cattle and pig farms was 24.2% and 27.9%, respectively. In cattle, the most common problem was an inadequate lying area followed by deficient housing conditions for calves; in pigs, it was a lack of enrichment material. The non-compliances concerning cattle were most frequently detected in autumn and in farms with small herd size, with tie-stall housing and outdoor rearing year-round. The pig farms with a farrow-to-finish unit had a higher prevalence of non-compliances than other production types. The prevalence of the non-compliant farms differed notably between the regions. It can be concluded that the cattle welfare inspections should be performed with a focus on the cold and rainy seasons and at small farms, whereas the pig welfare inspections should mainly focus on farrow-to-finish units. The data received from official inspections should be efficiently utilized in the development of animal welfare inspection system, with the aim of risk-based, consistent and uniform inspections. In addition, the data should be utilized in targeting information for farmers.