Search

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the use of outcome-based observations within Assured Dairy Farm scheme (ADF), Soil Association Organic Standards (SA), and cross compliance (CC) farm assessment reports. Methods: A total of 449 ADF reports, 37 SA reports and 26 CC reports were analyzed and their objective comments categorized as either resource-based or outcome-based. Results: A mean of 61.0% of ADF questions were responded to with comments, in comparison to 25.0% of SA and, 21.0% of CC report questions. The SA and CC reports had significantly more outcome-based comments than the ADF (p<0.001). The assessors’ tendency of choosing resource-based approach was revealed in the questionnaire results. Conclusion: Generally, the comments were comprehensive and contained professional judgements. Large numbers of comments provided in the ADF reports were mostly compliant and resource-based evidence, which serves as proof of assessment rather than aiding the certifying process. The inclusion of specific welfare outcome measures in the SA inspection likely increased the use of outcome-based comments in the reports, irrespective of whether the farm achieved compliance with a given standards. The CC scheme, on the other hand, focused on providing outcome-based evidence to justify noncompliant decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of a 'good life' recognises the distinction that an animal's quality of life is beyond that of a 'life worth living', representing a standard of welfare substantially higher than the legal minimum (FAWC, 2009). We propose that the opportunities required for a 'good life' could be used to structure resource tiers that lead to positive welfare and are compatible with higher welfare farm assurance schemes. Published evidence and expert opinion was used to define three tiers of resource provision (Welfare +, Welfare ++ and Welfare +++) above those stipulated in UK legislation and codes of practice, which should lead to positive welfare outcomes. In this paper we describe the principles underpinning the framework and the process of developing the resource tiers for laying hens. In doing so, we summarise expert opinion on resources required to achieve a 'good life' in laying hens and discuss the philosophical and practical challenges of developing the framework. We present the results of a pilot study to establish the validity, reliability and feasibility of the draft laying hen tiers on laying hen production systems. Finally, we propose a generic welfare assessment framework for farm animals and suggest directions for implementation, alongside outcome parameters, that can help define and promote a future 'good life' for farm animals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tail-biting data from different studies are difficult to compare because a range of definitions of tail-biting behaviour and tail-biting lesions are used. Although records from abattoirs provide a large database, their usefulness is restricted as tail-biting is under-recorded and environmental and husbandry factors associated with the behaviour are unlikely to be known. Both farm and abattoir data provide no information on the number of pigs biting, only those bitten. Studying individual animals that tail-bite should give a better understanding of the pig's motivation to tail-bite and which of the components of its environment should be adjusted to improve welfare. This review examines the existing literature on tail-biting in pigs but considered from a new perspective using three different descriptive behavioural types, namely, 'two-stage', 'sudden-forceful' and 'obsessive', each of which may have different motivational bases. The article also considers the different environmental and husbandry factors which may affect each type of behaviour and discusses why this is such a complicated field and why it is often difficult to draw conclusions from available research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: HENNOVATION was an EU funded project that aimed to explore the value of networks of laying hen farmers and within the laying hen processing industry, supported by scientists, to improve the health and welfare of laying-hens. During the 32-month project, the project team supported 19 networks in 5 countries and several networks generated new ideas and tested them in their commercial context. The project demonstrated that these networks led by farmers and industry practice can generate practical and effective solutions to animal welfare problems. Greater attention should be given to enhance and support these types of practice-led networks in future strategy and policy initiatives for animal health and welfare improvement. The Hennovation project, an EU H2020 funded thematic network, aimed to explore the potential value of practice-led multi-actor innovation networks within the laying hen industry. The project proposed that husbandry solutions can be practice-led and effectively supported to achieve durable gains in sustainability and animal welfare. It encouraged a move away from the traditional model of science providing solutions for practice, towards a collaborative approach where expertise from science and practice were equally valued. During the 32-month project, the team facilitated 19 multi-actor networks in five countries through six critical steps in the innovation process: problem identification, generation of ideas, planning, small scale trials, implementation and sharing with others. The networks included farmers, processors, veterinarians, technical advisors, market representatives and scientists. The interaction between the farmers and the other network actors, including scientists, was essential for farmer innovation. New relationships emerged between the scientists and farmers, based on experimental learning and the co-production of knowledge for improving laying hen welfare. The project demonstrated that a practice-led approach can be a major stimulus for innovation with several networks generating novel ideas and testing them in their commercial context. The Hennovation innovation networks not only contributed to bridging the science-practice gap by application of existing scientific solutions in practice but more so by jointly finding new solutions. Successful multi-actor, practice-led innovation networks appeared to depend upon the following key factors: active participation from relevant actors, professional facilitation, moderate resource support and access to relevant expertise. Farmers and processors involved in the project were often very enthusiastic about the approach, committing significant time to the network's activities. It is suggested that the agricultural research community and funding agencies should place greater value on practice-led multi-actor innovation networks alongside technology and advisor focused initiatives to improve animal welfare and embed best practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A husbandry advisory tool (HAT) was devised to help pig producers and their advisors identify and minimise possible risk factors for tail biting in finishing pigs. The prevalence of 83 risk factors identified from the literature and expert opinion was recorded on 65 commercial pig farms in England between May 2007 and July 2009. Those considered most important were associated with atmosphere/environment, environmental enrichment, the provision of food/drink and animal health factors. Forty-six farms received advice on minimising these risks and, of these, 27 also received a financial incentive to encourage the uptake of advice. A reduction in risk factors was observed on 42157 farms visited at the end of the study, with the greatest reduction occurring on the farms that had been incentivised. However, farms not receiving advice also had reduced risk factors associated with atmosphere/environment and stocking density over the course of the study. In conclusion, while some risk factors are structural and require substantial capital investment to change, a significant reduction in the risk of tail biting can be achieved on many farms through the systematic evaluation and modification of management practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Five Welfare Needs in UK animal welfare legislation underpin a legal duty of care and are an animal welfare assessment framework. Health and welfare problems arise when these needs are unmet. The veterinary professions work with others to address these problems, but there is no publicly funded U.K. companion animal welfare surveillance to identify priorities, or promote and monitor change., Methods: The veterinary charity, the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA), together with the market research organisation, YouGov, has undertaken a longitudinal nationwide survey, assessing whether the U.K's pet dogs, cats and rabbits are having their Five Welfare Needs met. Data from nationally representative samples of pet-owning adults, drawn from YouGov's online survey panel, have been used to produce the PDSA Animal Wellbeing (PAW) Report annually since 2011., Results: Examples are given of how the PAW Report has been used to monitor trends in animal welfare problems, drive collaborative behaviour change campaigns, create evidence-based funding applications and inspire innovation in veterinary practice., Conclusion: The PAW Report has contributed to closing a gap in national companion animal welfare surveillance. When governments rely on non-governmental organisations to assist with animal welfare surveillance, reliable sources such as the PAW Report can inform research, policy and legislation., (© 2021 The Authors. Veterinary Record published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Veterinary Association.)

Farmer-led, participatory approaches are being increasingly employed in agricultural research, with promising results. This study aimed to understand how a participatory approach based on the Danish stable schools could help to achieve practical, farmer-led changes that reduced reliance on antimicrobials in the UK. Five facilitated farmer action groups comprising 30 dairy farms across South West England met on farm at regular intervals between 2016 and 2018, and worked collaboratively within their groups to discuss how to reduce antimicrobial use. Qualitative data from group discussions and individual semi-structured interviews were collected and analyzed using thematic analysis to explore how the approach helped farmers address and deal with changes to their on-farm practices. Facilitator-guided reviews of antimicrobial use and benchmarking were carried out on each farm to assess any change in usage and help farmers review their practices. The pattern of antimicrobial use changed over the 2 yr of the study, with 21 participating farms reducing their use of highest-priority critically important antibiotics (6 farms were not using any of these critical medicines from the outset). Thirty practical action plans were co-developed by the groups with an average implementation rate of 54.3% within a year. All assessed farms implemented 1 recommendation, and many were still ongoing at the end of the study. Farmers particularly valued the peer-to-peer learning during farm walks. Farmers reported how facilitated discussions and action planning as a peer group had empowered them to change practices. Participants identified knowledge gaps during the project, particularly on highest-priority critically important antibiotics, where they were not getting information from their veterinarians. The study demonstrated that facilitation has a valuable role to play in participatory approaches beyond moderating discussion; facilitators encouraged knowledge mobilization within the groups and were participants in the research as well. Facilitated, farmer-led, participatory approaches that mobilize different forms of knowledge and encourage peer learning are a promising way of helping farmers to adapt and develop responsible practices., (Copyright © 2021 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Existing animal welfare standards for legislation and food certification programmes are primarily designed to avoid harms to the livestock, with minimal consideration given to their behavioural freedoms. Recent research has shown, however, that animal welfare should not only be evaluated by the absence of negative states but also by the presence of "good life" or positive experiences enjoyed by animals. The objective of the present study is to investigate the scientific validity and on-farm cost implications of utilising potential input-based measures of positive welfare as part of evaluation criteria for farm assurance schemes. Building upon the Farm Animal Welfare Council's concept of good life opportunities, an assessment was undertaken on 49 noncaged laying hen farms across the UK by measuring on-farm resources to facilitate positive experiences alongside commonly measured metrics for welfare outcomes. The financial cost of providing these resources on each enterprise was also estimated using a farm-scale costing tool. The results suggested that 63% of resource needs that facilitate the behaviour opportunities of laying hens are already being provided by these producers, far above legal and commercial requirements. This practice attracts no reward mechanism or direct financial benefit under the current market structure. Additional provision of opportunities was positively associated with behavioural outcomes, but only limited impact was observed on health and productivity measures. Economic modelling indicated that significant room exists to further improve welfare scores on these farms, on average by 97%, without incurring additional costs. Together we argue that these results can be seen as evidence of market failure since producers are providing positive welfare value to society that is not being currently recognised. It is therefore contended that measuring and rewarding the supply of good life opportunities could be a novel policy instrument to create an effective marketplace that appropriately recognises high welfare production.

Consistency of assessment is essential to the farm assurance process. This study evaluated the inter-observer reliability of 31 farm assurance assessors, six veterinarians and four researchers for five pig welfare outcome measures proposed for inclusion into the UK pig farm assurance schemes. These were (1) tail lesions, (2) body lesions, (3) lameness, (4) pigs requiring hospitalisation and (5) oral behaviour. The following inter-observer reliability testing methods against a gold standard Trainer were used: a comparison of farm prevalence and the numbers of affected pigs in each pen identified by observers, Cohen's kappa (κ), Kendall's W, proportional agreement, sensitivity, and specificity. All measures achieved potentially high levels of inter-observer reliability and it was concluded that none should be excluded from farm assurance at this stage. However, across all the measures, 45% of observers did not record an overall farm prevalence 'close' to that of the gold standard Trainer. With the level of training and testing that took place in this study there would be a danger of significant bias occurring in a national assessment scheme. The data collected enabled some comparison of the methods used to assess inter-observer reliability. It is suggested that when the aim is to achieve agreement between observers on the overall farm prevalence the inter-observer reliability testing should focus on the closeness of the overall farm prevalence recorded by observers, but that other types of analysis may be helpful during training., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Simple Templates for Everyday Planning and Support (STEPS) was created to illustrate the dynamic process of farm-health planning. Farm-health planning, also known as herd health or flock health planning, is a holistic, proactive management approach to animal health and welfare. This resource was used in a teaching seminar held for two groups of fourth-year veterinary students over a two-year period. Students answered a questionnaire before and after the teaching seminar that revealed that most participants believed the new resource had increased their knowledge of and ability to undertake farm-health planning. Students also completed one of four species-specific case examples that were evaluated by the first author. Most students (90.7%) included at least half of the essential farm-health planning factors in their case example submission. Twenty-six of these essential health planning factors were included by at least 80% of study participants. Six essential health planning factors received less than 20% of the student response rate. The traditional veterinary skills, which involve the management of individual animals, such as an assessment of the severity of lesions, were well represented in all of the case examples. However, the monitoring step of farm-health planning, such as the use of intervention levels, was the least well answered by the student population. In conclusion, the research study found that the STEPS seminar was successful in introducing many of the main principles of farm-health planning to two groups of fourth-year veterinary students.

Teaching veterinary students about animal welfare science, ethics, and law has been identified as a priority of the veterinary curriculum. Suggested content for such a course, the stage at which it should be taught, and possible methods of teaching and assessing the subject have been outlined. Critically, such a course needs to address the quantification of the impact of humans on animals (welfare science), the analysis of our moral obligations (welfare ethics), and knowledge of minimum welfare standards (welfare legislation). A mixture of both teaching methods and assessment techniques is needed to ensure that sufficient skills and knowledge and a deeper understanding are achieved.