CONCEPTS IN ANIMAL WELFARE

Group Assessment and Management of Welfare

MODULE
Group Assessment and
Management of Welfare 8
A. Objectives
This module will enable you to
1) Understand the principles of welfare assessment at group level
2) Identify different methods for assessment
3) Recognise applications for welfare assessment at group level
4) Understand management of health and welfare in group systems

B. Introduction

Assessment of individual
animal e.g. comb colour,
feather-score, beak

How do you
assess
thousands?

C. Principles of welfare assessment on group level

1) Which groups of animals?
– Farms
– Laboratory animals
– Animals in shelters
– Wildlife
2) Requirements for welfare indicators
a) Practicability
– E.g. time constraints, expenses
b) Reliability: Amount of random error, including
– Agreement between observers
– Agreement between different observations of the same observer
c) Validity: Meaningfulness of the parameter

D. Epidemiological approach
1) EPIDEMIOLOGY is defined as "the study of the distribution and determinants of health-related
states or events in specified populations, and the application of this study to the control of
health problems".

34
 CONCEPTS IN ANIMAL WELFARE
Group Assessment and Management of Welfare

2) Epidemiological studies are observational. They include cross-sectional studies or surveys in

which a representative cross-section of the population has to be chosen, taking various factors
such as farm size, area, breed, etc. into account. Selecting a representative cross-section of
groups of animals (e.g. from all dairy units of an area). Include such terms as incidence and
prevalence rates.
3) Random selection of animals of a group
4) Assessment
a) Severity and duration of a problem
b) Numbers of animals affected – i.e. Prevalence and Incidence

E. Assessment of animal welfare

To assess animal welfare two different types of parameters can be used:
a) Input (indirect parameters) – assessment of husbandry resources provided to the animals.
– Measurements of housing
– Provision of food and water
– Qualification of stockperson
– Medicine records
b) Output (direct parameters) – assessment animal-related indicators that show the effects of
the inputs on the animals’ welfare.
– Assessment of live animal
– Assessment of dead animal (abattoir, post-mortem examinations)
Example 1: Animal-centred assessment (Main et al 2003)
 Welfare outputs of dairy cows
– Farm records
– Farmer’s estimates of disease incidence,
body condition etc
– Independent observations
Example 2: Animal Needs Index (Bartussek et al 2000)
 Uses welfare inputs & outputs
 Space and movement
 Social interaction
 Flooring
 Light and air
 Stockmanship
– E.g. animal cleanliness

F. Can we describe ‘welfare’ with one score?

In most situations a variety of methods (both input and output assessment) should be used and a
combination of the most useful for the aim of assessment should be chosen.
1) Can they be summarised to one score?
2) Are some more important than others?
3) What is a ‘normal’ level?

G. Applications welfare assessment at group level

1) Research
 Health and welfare monitoring
 Impact assessment of interventions
2) Voluntary Certification Schemes

34
 CONCEPTS IN ANIMAL WELFARE
Group Assessment and Management of Welfare

1. E.g., American Meat Institute

3) Legislation
4) Advisory - Preventive medicine

1) Research examples
a) Assess range of welfare in ‘normal’ groups
b) Assess husbandry systems
c) Assess individual resources (risk factors)
d) Assess certification schemes
e) Assess influence of new legislation
f) Assess impact of projects

1. Compare husbandry systems

Individual housing of pregnant Group housing of pregnant

sows (Leeb et al, 2001) sows
2.4% lame 5.3% lame
21.4% overgrown claws 8.3% overgrown claws
41.7% calluses 18.2% calluses

2. Assess effect of interventions

– Vaccination campaigns
– Owner education and training
– Assess before & after intervention
– Compare locations with and without intervention
Example: Health and welfare monitoring
 Current policy
o Normal treatment and prevention protocol
 Records
o Disease incidence
 Review
o Target levels
o Intervention levels
 Action plan

34
 CONCEPTS IN ANIMAL WELFARE
Group Assessment and Management of Welfare

3. Health and welfare monitoring

 Also applicable for wild animals
 Assessment of inputs e.g.
– Adequate grazing
– Access to water
 Assessments of outputs
– Body condition score
– Number of young
– Physiological parameters - e.g. cortisol in faeces

2) Voluntary/certification examples
a) Farm assurance schemes
– Usually market-led
– Prime concern is food safety
b) UK - Red Tractor Mark scheme, Freedom Foods
c) USA – Certified Humane Program
d) Austria - “Tierschutzgeprueft” use Animal Needs Index for laying hens
e) EUREPGAP - international
f) Organic certification systems
– Voluntary membership but some EU legislative requirements (EU reg. 1804/1999)
g) Subsidy requirements
– Voluntary system, can choose to join or not

3) Legislation examples
a) EU legislation 98/58/EC
– Primarily resource-based standards
– However, some can be assessed by observing the animal
b) Austria: Animal Needs Index in certain provinces
– Salzburg & Tyrol
– Minimum ANI score
c) Ireland: Individual cow health assessment
– Annual inspection of cow as part of TB test
d) Switzerland: Assessment of system by research centre
– New husbandry systems assessed and authorised

H. How do legislation or certification schemes work?

To be able to set up a successful scheme or legislation, the following points are needed:
1) Standards which shall define the resources that should be provided
2) Trained assessors, who should be independent both from the farmer (e.g. it should not be the
farmer’s veterinarian) and the scheme
3) Checklists for on-farm assessment
4) Intervention plans, if standards are not met, defining type of improvements, time limits and
penalties.

1) Types of Standards
1. Standards: Means-orientated
a) Resources are required independent of their actual effect
b) Based on good practice/ welfare research
c) Assessed by looking at resources
Example: “Animals not kept in buildings shall at all times have access to a well-
drained lying area”

34
 CONCEPTS IN ANIMAL WELFARE
Group Assessment and Management of Welfare

2) Standards: Goal-orientated
1. Level of required resources is defined with reference to their effect on the animals on each
farm
2. Assessed by looking at the animal
Example: ‘Animals shall be fed a wholesome diet in sufficient quantity to maintain them in
good health, satisfy their nutritional needs and promote a positive state of well-being.’

Advisory/Management examples
a) Problem analysis
– Perceive, evaluate, act, revaluate
b) Benchmarking system
– giving points of references for
o Animal based parameters
o Production performance
c) Management system
– Health plan e.g. Farm Assurance requirement
– HACCP systems

I. Benchmarking systems
1) A benchmark is defined as: “a standard or point of reference”. In this case, the prevalence of
various welfare indicators in one group of animals is compared with peers - e.g. farms of the
same area.
2) This enables the farmer and the farmer’s veterinarian to identify not only areas of concern, but
also positive areas. This helps to produce farm-specific priorities for action.
3) Identify farm strengths and weaknesses

Benchmarking: Example 1: Calluses in sows (Leeb et al, 2001) – comparison of one farm
(red) with 43 other farms

 The red bar highlights one farm, which had an average of 6 calluses per pig.

34
 CONCEPTS IN ANIMAL WELFARE
Group Assessment and Management of Welfare

J. Benefits of benchmarking
1) Feedback to farmers motivates them
2) Encourage
– Competition between farms over results
– Incentive system
– Better price for animal products if criteria are met
3) Educate
– Raise awareness of own performance
– Awareness of husbandry solutions to problems
4) Enforce
– Define minimum welfare performance
– Can be used to pass/fail e.g. animal-dependent legislation
– Alternatively, farmer must produce and implement action plan for certification scheme

K. Health plan
“A plan that aims at ensuring the development of a pattern of health building and disease control
measures appropriate to the particular circumstances of the individual farm and allows for the
evolution of a farming system progressively less dependent on allopathic veterinary medicinal
products” (United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards, 2001).
A health plan is designed by a farmer and his or her advisor (veterinarian) and should contain:
1) A plan of the housing, feeding, breeding, grazing policies and targets
2) Biosecurity measures
3) Health recording and monitoring
4) Disease control plans (vaccination policies, parasite control, routine medication).

L. Who is responsible?
1) Responsibility for the success of a welfare action plan lies with
a) Animal owner
b) Their advisors e.g. vet, nutritionist
c) The external assessor of the welfare scheme
2) Owner
a) Overall responsibility
b) Formulate plan for procedures
c) Maintain records
3) Advisor
a) Advice on plans and record system
b) Review of performance
c) Advice on corrective action
4) Assurance assessor
a) Assess availability of health plans/records
b) Assess frequency of review
c) Assess implementation of health plan
d) Assess effectiveness of health plan

M. General comments
1) Legislation and certification standards are mostly resource–based
– They rely on welfare research
2) Legislation is variably enforced in many countries
3) Certification schemes have a role in enforcing and going beyond legislation
4) Management systems (e.g. health plans) are not currently used much

34
 CONCEPTS IN ANIMAL WELFARE
Group Assessment and Management of Welfare

N. Conclusions/Summary
1) Practicability, reliability and validity are important
2) Depending on the aim, a combination of different parameters is favourable (inputs and
outputs)
3) Research, voluntary certification schemes, legislation and advisory tools are applications of
welfare assessment at group level
4) The aim of all assessments should be the improvement of animal welfare

Resources: Animal welfare judging, online

 Michigan State University, Animal Behavior and Welfare Group
– http://www.msu.edu/~zanella/awjc.html

Resources: websites
 EurepGAP
– A private sector body that sets voluntary standards for the certification of agricultural
products around the globe
– www.eurep.org
 COST Action: a forum for methods of measuring and monitoring farm animal welfare and to
stimulate welfare research
– www.cost846.unina.it
 UK Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs
– http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/
 Welfare standards in organic farming
– http://www.veeru.reading.ac.uk/organic/proc/proceedings.htm
– http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ahws/fhp/pdf/actionplan.pdf
– Welfare Quality Project, EU. www.welfarequality.net

Resources: welfare assessment and monitoring

 Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm or Group Level - Proceedings of an international
workshop organised by the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences and the Royal Veterinary
and Agricultural University, 27-28 Aug. 1999, Denmark. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. A Animal
Sci., 2001 Suppl. 30, 3-4
 Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm or Group level- Abstracts of presentations and
posters, University of Bristol (4-6 Sept. 2002, UK). Animal Welfare Volume 2003; Volume 12,
Issue 4
 Ekesbo I. 1992: Monitoring systems using clinical, subclinical and behavioural records for
improving health and welfare. In: Moss, R. (ed) Livestock Health and Welfare, Bath press,
Avon, UK pp 20-50

Further Reading
 Bartussek H. 1999 A review of the animal needs index (ANI) for the assessment of animals’
well-being in the housing systems for Austrian proprietary products and legislation. Livestock
Production Science, 61: 179 – 192.
 Bartussek H, Leeb Ch & Held S 2000. Animal Needs Index for Cattle. Federal Research
Institute for Agriculture in Alpine Regions.
 Farm Animal Welfare Council 1997 Report on the Welfare of Dairy Cattle. Report 3426.
www.fawc.org.uk/reports.htm
 Grandin T. Interpretation of the American Meat Institute Animal Handling Guidelines for
auditing the welfare of cattle, pigs, and sheep at slaughter plants.
http://www.grandin.com/interpreting.ami.guidelines.html

34
 CONCEPTS IN ANIMAL WELFARE
Group Assessment and Management of Welfare

 Johnsen PF, Johannesson T & Sandøe P. 2001. Assessment of farm animal welfare at herd
level: many goals, many methods. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal
Science 51 (Supplement 30) 2001 26 – 33
 Leeb B,Leeb Ch, Troxler J, Schuh M. 2001 Skin Lesions and Callosities in Group-Housed
Pregnant Sows: Animal-Related Welfare Indicators. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A
- Animal Science 51 (Supplement 30):82 - 87
 Main DC, Whay HR ,Green LE & Webster AJ. 2003. Effect of the RSPCA Freedom Food
Scheme on the welfare of dairy cattle. Veterinary Record 153: 227-231
 Whay HR, Main DCJ, Green LE & Webster AJF. 2003 Assessment of dairy cattle welfare
using animal–based measurements:direct observations and investigation of farm records.
Veterinary Record 153: 197-202

34