Search

The list of standard abbreviations for JDS is available at adsa.org/jds-abbreviations-24. Nonstandard abbreviations are available in the Notes. Freestall comfort is reflected in various indicators, including the ability for dairy cattle to display unhindered posture transition movements in the cubicles. To ensure farm animal welfare, it is instrumental for the farm management to be able to continuously monitor occurrences of abnormal motions. Advances in computer vision have enabled accurate kinematic measurements in several fields, such as human, equine, and bovine biomechanics. An important step upstream to measuring displacement during posture transitions is determining that the behavior is accurately detected. In this study, we propose a framework for detecting lying-to-standing posture transitions from 3-dimensional (3D) pose estimation data. A multiview computer vision system recorded posture transitions between December 2021 and April 2022 in a Swedish stall housing 183 individual cows. The output data consisted of the 3D coordinates of specific anatomical landmarks. The sensitivity of posture transition detection was 88.2%, and precision reached 99.5%. In analyzing those transition movements, breakpoints detected the timestamp of onset of the rising motion, which was compared with that annotated by observers. Agreement between observers, measured by intraclass correlation, was 0.85 between 3 human observers and 0.81 when adding the automated detection. The intra-observer mean absolute difference in annotated timestamps ranged from 0.4 s to 0.7 s. The mean absolute difference between each observer and the automated detection ranged from 1.0 s to 1.3 s. We found a significant difference in annotated timestamps between all observer pairs, but not between the observers and the automated detection, leading to the conclusion that the automated detection does not introduce a distinct bias. We conclude that the model is able to accurately detect the phenomenon of interest and that it is equitable to an observer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: All good zoos have animal welfare assessment policies and practices in place to promote their animals' welfare, 24/7, across the lifespan. Here, we describe the approaches that The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland's (RZSS) Edinburgh Zoo and Highland Wildlife Park take to providing conditions for animals to thrive in captivity, in collaboration with universities. We describe the governance and philosophical stance that RZSS takes, including policies and review processes, and how they are put into practice. In collaboration with universities, a wide range of welfare research is conducted, which maps well to the Five Domains model of animal welfare and enables the zoo to incorporate the findings into their practices. Finally, we outline how the University of Stirling has collaborated with the RZSS to make its welfare assessment tool for the whole animal collection more efficient and reliable, and to provide a quantitative evidence base for individuals/groups that require in depth behavioural data to understand what interventions might be appropriate. We advocate for collaboration across zoos on behavioural projects to improve understandings of "baseline" behaviours in captivity, across the 24-h day, seasons, and life stages, as well as in relation to a range of housing and husbandry practices. Good zoos have four aims—to conserve species, educate the public, engage in research, and provide recreation—all of which can only be achieved when underpinned by high animal welfare standards. In this paper, we share the approach that The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland's (RZSS) Edinburgh Zoo and Highland Wildlife Park take to animal welfare. We highlight the role that animal welfare research, in collaboration with universities, has had in enabling the zoo to take an evidence-based approach to welfare and to put findings into practice. We share the collaborative process through which we developed and piloted the current animal welfare assessment tools, how they were validated, and how they were tested for reliability as part of a long-term collaboration between the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and the University of Stirling: (1) the RZSS Welfare Assessment Tool, a 50-question animal welfare assessment adapted from the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIAZA) Toolkit; and (2) the Stirling Toolkit, a package of evidence-based resources for behavioural-data collection. Our aim is to facilitate standardised, evidence-based approaches to assessing animal welfare which, when finalised, can be used collaboratively across zoos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT: Freestall comfort is reflected in various indicators, including the ability for dairy cattle to display unhindered posture transition movements in the cubicles. To ensure farm animal welfare, it is instrumental for the farm management to be able to continuously monitor occurrences of abnormal motions. Advances in computer vision have enabled accurate kinematic measurements in several fields, such as human, equine, and bovine biomechanics. An important step upstream to measuring displacement during posture transitions is determining that the behavior is accurately detected. In this study, we propose a framework for detecting lying-to-standing posture transitions from 3-dimensional (3D) pose estimation data. A multiview computer vision system recorded posture transitions between December 2021 and April 2022 in a Swedish stall housing 183 individual cows. The output data consisted of the 3D coordinates of specific anatomical landmarks. The sensitivity of posture transition detection was 88.2%, and precision reached 99.5%. In analyzing those transition movements, breakpoints detected the timestamp of onset of the rising motion, which was compared with that annotated by observers. Agreement between observers, measured by intraclass correlation, was 0.85 between 3 human observers and 0.81 when adding the automated detection. The intra-observer mean absolute difference in annotated timestamps ranged from 0.4 s to 0.7 s. The mean absolute difference between each observer and the automated detection ranged from 1.0 s to 1.3 s. We found a significant difference in annotated timestamps between all observer pairs, but not between the observers and the automated detection, leading to the conclusion that the automated detection does not introduce a distinct bias. We conclude that the model is able to accurately detect the phenomenon of interest and that it is equitable to an observer.

Copyright of Journal fuer Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract Background This study aimed to validate slaughterhouse indicators collected during meat inspection as an alternative to on-farm animal welfare indicators. For this purpose, the assessments of twelve on-farm and seven slaughterhouse indicators of 628 pigs from three different farms were combined into three indices, differentiated between on-farm and slaughterhouse: (1) limb health, (2) other organ health, and (3) respiratory health. At first, an assessment at animal-level using agreement parameters was carried out to ascertain whether the same welfare or health issues were identified on-farm and at slaughterhouse, taking the production period (farrowing, rearing and fattening period) and the last weeks before slaughtering into account. Second, the connection of slaughterhouse findings on the individual on-farm health indices was examined using logistic regressions, to determine whether certain welfare issues can be better monitored using slaughterhouse indicators. Results Acceptable agreement was determined using the Prevalence-Adjusted Bias-Adjusted Kappa (PABAK) for the farrowing and fattening period, but not for the rearing period. A more detailed analysis of the weeks before slaughter shows that there is still a poor agreement 8 weeks before slaughter and an acceptable agreement 4 weeks before slaughter. This indicated the slaughterhouse indicators pneumonia, pleuritis and pericarditis as possible estimators of fever and deviant behavior on-farm and the slaughterhouse indicators bursitis and joint inflammations as possible estimators of lameness. In the second part of the analysis, the connection of slaughterhouse findings on the individual on-farm health indices was investigated; a significant influence of the farm on the limb and respiratory indices and no significant influence of the slaughterhouse findings could be determined, provided that all weekly assessments during the lifetime of the pigs have been taken into account. However, an influence of the slaughterhouse findings on the respiratory index and on the other organ index could be determined if only the weekly assessments four and eight weeks before slaughter, respectively, were taken into account. Conclusions In general, the possible suitable indicators detected by the PABAK, could replace some health-related indicators but a complete substitution of on-farm welfare assessment is not possible. In addition, the traceability over time must be investigated further.

This study compared the outcome of the Swedish Official Control (OC) with that of two other well-established protocols for assessing animal welfare in dairy cows, ‘Ask the Cow’ (AC) and Welfare Quality (WQ). Forty-one farms already scheduled for an official control were assessed by the three protocols on the same day. The hypothesis was that farms would be ranked similarly in terms of best and worst, irrespective of the protocol used. A second aim was to explore whether any of the animal-based quantified measures in AC and WQ could be candidates to improve OC. The eight farms with most remarks in OC (3–5) were ranked in the range 19–40 in AC and 5–37 in WQ. The only correlation observed (r = 0.40, P = 0.009) was between the rankings in AC and OC. Candidate measurements to improve OC taken from AC and WQ are quantifying individual body condition and cleanliness and recording skin lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed to validate slaughterhouse indicators collected during meat inspection as an alternative to on-farm animal welfare indicators. For this purpose, the assessments of twelve on-farm and seven slaughterhouse indicators of 628 pigs from three different farms were combined into three indices, differentiated between on-farm and slaughterhouse: (1) limb health, (2) other organ health, and (3) respiratory health. At first, an assessment at animal-level using agreement parameters was carried out to ascertain whether the same welfare or health issues were identified on-farm and at slaughterhouse, taking the production period (farrowing, rearing and fattening period) and the last weeks before slaughtering into account. Second, the connection of slaughterhouse findings on the individual on-farm health indices was examined using logistic regressions, to determine whether certain welfare issues can be better monitored using slaughterhouse indicators. Results: Acceptable agreement was determined using the Prevalence-Adjusted Bias-Adjusted Kappa (PABAK) for the farrowing and fattening period, but not for the rearing period. A more detailed analysis of the weeks before slaughter shows that there is still a poor agreement 8 weeks before slaughter and an acceptable agreement 4 weeks before slaughter. This indicated the slaughterhouse indicators pneumonia, pleuritis and pericarditis as possible estimators of fever and deviant behavior on-farm and the slaughterhouse indicators bursitis and joint inflammations as possible estimators of lameness. In the second part of the analysis, the connection of slaughterhouse findings on the individual on-farm health indices was investigated; a significant influence of the farm on the limb and respiratory indices and no significant influence of the slaughterhouse findings could be determined, provided that all weekly assessments during the lifetime of the pigs have been taken into account. However, an influence of the slaughterhouse findings on the respiratory index and on the other organ index could be determined if only the weekly assessments four and eight weeks before slaughter, respectively, were taken into account. Conclusions: In general, the possible suitable indicators detected by the PABAK, could replace some health-related indicators but a complete substitution of on-farm welfare assessment is not possible. In addition, the traceability over time must be investigated further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Good zoos have four aims—to conserve species, educate the public, engage in research, and provide recreation—all of which can only be achieved when underpinned by high animal welfare standards. In this paper, we share the approach that The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland’s (RZSS) Edinburgh Zoo and Highland Wildlife Park take to animal welfare. We highlight the role that animal welfare research, in collaboration with universities, has had in enabling the zoo to take an evidence-based approach to welfare and to put findings into practice. We share the collaborative process through which we developed and piloted the current animal welfare assessment tools, how they were validated, and how they were tested for reliability as part of a long-term collaboration between the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and the University of Stirling: (1) the RZSS Welfare Assessment Tool, a 50-question animal welfare assessment adapted from the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIAZA) Toolkit; and (2) the Stirling Toolkit, a package of evidence-based resources for behavioural-data collection. Our aim is to facilitate standardised, evidence-based approaches to assessing animal welfare which, when finalised, can be used collaboratively across zoos.

Simple Summary: Paratuberculosis is a chronic incurable bacterial infection widespread all over the world in ruminants. The disease impacts animal health and welfare and causes significant economic losses in animal productions. This survey investigated the spread of paratuberculosis in northern Italian dairy goat farming by serological testing. Contextually, a welfare and biosecurity assessment through a standardized protocol was conducted. More than half (19 out of 33, 58%) of the investigated farms were infected, with a mean intra-herd prevalence of 7.4%. Welfare assessment showed quite favorable average results, although in 24% of the farms the welfare level was poor. On the contrary, 58% of the farms showed an unsatisfactory biosecurity level. Our results provide information on the spread of paratuberculosis in dairy goat farms of northern Italy. For this relevant disease, official prevalence data in goat breeding are still scarce. Moreover, the present work highlighted the low level of biosecurity measures implemented by the farmers. Paratuberculosis is a notable infectious disease of ruminants. Goats appear to be particularly susceptible. The survey aimed to investigate the spread of paratuberculosis in Italian goat farming and evaluate whether the presence of the disease could be influenced by welfare and biosecurity deficiencies. A serological survey for paratuberculosis in 33 dairy farms in northern Italy was conducted. Contextually, animal welfare and biosecurity were assessed, using a standardized protocol of 36 welfare indicators and 15 biosecurity indicators which assigns to each farm a welfare and biosecurity score from 0 (any application) to 100% (full application). An overall result of less than 60% was considered insufficient. Nineteen farms (58%) tested positive for paratuberculosis, with a mean intra-herd seroprevalence of 7.4%. Total welfare ranged from 39.56 to 90.7% (mean 68.64%). Biosecurity scores ranged from 10.04 to 90.01% (mean 57.57%). Eight farms (24%) showed poor welfare conditions (welfare score < 60%) and 19 (58%) an unsatisfactory biosecurity condition (biosecurity score < 60%). With respect to the explorative character of the study, an indicative association between seven welfare and biosecurity indicators and paratuberculosis seropositivity was identified. The presence of paratuberculosis in northern Italy dairy goat farms was confirmed. The welfare and biosecurity assessment protocol proved to be an accurate tool, capable of identifying critical points for managing health, welfare and productivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The monitoring and assessment of animals is important for their health and welfare. The appropriate selection of multiple, validated, and feasible welfare assessment indicators is required to effectively identify compromises or improvements in animal welfare. Animal welfare indicators available can be animal based or resource based and collated together to form various assessment tools. The literature contains a wide variety of indicators; however, there is yet to be an ideal constellation of indicators for animal-based welfare assessment in small mammals. A systematic review was performed to identify and outline common animal-based indicators for animal welfare assessment in small mammals, specifically guinea pigs (Cavia Porcellus), mice (Mus musculus), rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), and rats (Rattus norvegicus). This review aims to provide the basis for further research into animal welfare indicators for these species and their application to improve animal welfare assessment, management, and strategies. The monitoring and assessment of animals is important for their health and welfare. The appropriate selection of multiple, validated, and feasible welfare assessment indicators is required to effectively identify compromises or improvements to animal welfare. Animal welfare indicators can be animal or resource based. Indicators can be collated to form assessment tools (e.g., grimace scales) or animal welfare assessment models (e.g., 5 Domains) and frameworks (e.g., 5 Freedoms). The literature contains a wide variety of indicators, with both types needed for effective animal welfare assessment; however, there is yet to be an ideal constellation of indicators for animal-based welfare assessment in small mammals such as guinea pigs (Cavia Porcellus), mice (Mus musculus), rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), and rats (Rattus norvegicus). A systematic review of grey and peer-reviewed literature was performed to determine the types of animal-based welfare indicators available to identify and assess animal health and welfare in these small mammals maintained across a wide variety of conditions. The available indicators were categorised and scored against a selection of criteria, including potential ease of use and costs. This review and analysis aim to provide the basis for further research into animal welfare indicators for these species. Future applications of this work may include improvements to animal welfare assessments or schemes, guiding better management, and implementing future strategies to enable better animal welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Free-stall cubicles are designed so that cows do not defecate in the bedding material, while still providing comfortable lying places. However, fixed cubicle elements, such as the partition and neck rail, restrict available movement space and may hinder cows from performing natural lying down and standing up movement patterns. Although there are various types of cubicle partitions that differ in shape, dimensions, or materials, there is no method other than visual observations to assess their effects on cow welfare. An automated detection system could improve the efficiency and promote objectivity of such assessments. Therefore, the aim of this research was to explore which atypical lying down and standing up behaviors could be detected using body-mounted accelerometers and machine learning. Three leg- and one head-mounted accelerometer set to record at 20 Hz were fitted to 48 lactating dairy cows (Brown Swiss and Holstein × Swiss Fleckvieh). Lying down and standing up events were simultaneously assessed through video observations, by assigning binary presence/absence labels for atypical behaviors, such as lunging the head sideways when standing up and pawing the bedding material before lying down. Different time series classification algorithms were employed for model development using a nested cross-validation strategy. The best performing classifiers were MiniRocket and the deep learning algorithm InceptionTime. Atypical behaviors performed during standing up events, namely Hesitant head lunge and Crawling backwards, were identified as most promising candidates for accelerometer-based detection. These behaviors were detected with balanced accuracies of 0.67 and 0.74, respectively, and their learning curves indicated that more training data might further improve model performance. Overall, achieved performances were not yet satisfactory for application in the evaluation of new dairy cow housing installations. Potentially, ethograms designed for human observers are not optimal for machine learning and adjustments with machine learnability in mind might be necessary. The behaviors identified as promising are good candidates for further development into an efficient and objective method that could complement human observations in the assessment of dairy cow housing installations.

ABSTRACTThe study objective was to examine the animal welfare status of Irish beef production farms using an animal welfare index (AWI). Beef production farms (n = 105) including suckler calf-to-beef (n = 30), suckler calf/weaning/finishing (n = 63), dairy calf-to-beef (n = 12) were assessed during the winter housing period using the AWI. Fifty-one indicators were grouped into six categories: ‘locomotion’; six indicators, ‘social interactions’; eight indicators, ‘flooring’; four indicators, ‘environment’; nine indicators, ‘stockperson’; thirteen indicators and ‘husbandry management’ eleven indicators. Two indicators relating to the size of the farm and number of animals on the farm were also collected. The overall mean AWI percentage for the suckler calf-to-beef, suckler calf/weaning/finishing, dairy calf-to-beef farms were 70.3%, 71.9% and 66.6%, respectively. There was no difference (P > 0.05) in AWI between full-time and part-time farmers. This study demonstrated the application of the AWI for use in beef production systems.

The “Welfare Quality protocols” (WQP) were developed in 2009 as objective welfare assessment tools. The WQP are based on four welfare principles: 1) “good feeding”, 2) “good housing”, 3) “good health”, and 4) “appropriate behavior”. The included WQP-indicators were developed for growing pigs and are recommended for rearing piglets, although, to the authors’ knowledge, they have not been tested in this age class. Therefore, the present study tested selected indicators from different welfare assessment protocols with regard to test–retest reliability (TRR), consistency over time, in an on-farm study on rearing pigs. This allows to investigate whether the WQP-indicators developed for growing pigs can be recommended for rearing piglets and whether the additional indicators should be included in the WQP. In total 28 selected pen- or individual-level indicators were used by one observer to assess the animal welfare of rearing piglets on three pig farms. Per batch 40 to 125 piglets were randomly selected and individually marked to record the weekly assessments. This procedure was repeated in three consecutive batches per farm and resulted in a total of 759 rearing piglets being assessed. Spearman’s rank correlation co-efficient (RS), intraclass correlation co-efficient (ICC), and limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated to evaluate their TRR, especially if the TRR was influenced by the group of assessed animals (batch comparisons) or the age of the assessed piglets (age class comparisons). From the 28 indicators, 12 had a very low prevalence of <1% making an assumption about their TRR meaningless. From the pen level indicators, “sneezing” achieved acceptable TRR for both comparisons and “behavioral observations” (BO) achieved in general good values (e.g., “positive social behavior”: (RS: 0.34 to 0.89; ICC: 0.00 to 0.90; LoA ϵ [−2.93; 7.41] to ϵ [−18.9; 11.5]) for both comparisons (batch, age class). The WQP-indicators of sufficient TRR, such as “tail lesions”, “lameness”, “wounds on the body”, “human–animal-relationship test” and “BO”, cannot cover the four welfare principles adequately. In particular, problems remained with the welfare principles of “good feeding”, “good housing”, and partly “good health”. However, these grievances could be overcome by including further indicators from other sources outside the WQP which have acceptable to good results for TRR in this study, such as “back posture”, “ear lesions”, “normal behavior”, and “tail posture” [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For businesses involved in animal production, ensuring high animal welfare standards has become the cornerstone of corporate social responsibility practices. Since animal welfare cannot be verified by consumers at the point of purchase, industry-led audits provide important assurance that animals used to produce food lived an acceptable quality of life and experienced a humane death. The Five Freedoms offer a simple tool to conceptualize the complex, multi-dimensional concept of animal welfare, and they have been widely adopted as a basic operational framework for compliance. However, the Five Freedoms are problematic in that they focus on the absence of negative welfare states, underemphasize the importance of positive experiences, are absolute, and represent a (mostly unattainable) ideal. The Five Domains model represents inter-related aspects of an animal’s welfare state, with four physical/functional domains used to infer likely mental experiences in the fifth domain. This model allows for consideration of both positive and negative affective experiences, recognizes degrees of welfare compromise, acknowledges that animals cannot be free from all negative experiences (and that indeed, some are essential for survival). Thus, the model better reflects current scientific understanding of animal welfare and – that ultimately, we are interested in how animals experience their lives. Nevertheless, caution is needed when inferring mental states, which can never be directly observed or measured, and hence the ultimate outcomes of the model’s application should be qualitative. Operationalization of the Five Domains offers several opportunities to improve the breadth and quality of welfare audits for production animals. The model can incorporate both resource/management- based and animal-based measures of welfare; the former reflect risks to animals’ welfare while the latter often provide direct information on the animal’s welfare state at the time of assessment. Existing welfare indicators may be linked to relevant mental states and evaluated accordingly, and new metrics may be scientifically identified. Importantly, the Five Domains structure demands scrutiny of the affective state consequences to animals of housing, handling, and husbandry procedures, and could improve the effectiveness of animal welfare training for auditors and stockpersons. Adoption of the Five Domains framework could facilitate improved communication about animal welfare in the food chain with customers and consumers.

One of the aims of the Dutch Animals Act is to protect animal welfare. The assumption that animal welfare risks are managed and mitigated by the Act, however, has not been studied before. The aim of this paper is to evaluate whether or not animal welfare risks can be managed adequately under the current Dutch Animals Act and what modifications to the legislation could improve animal welfare in the Netherlands. For that purpose, welfare consequences identified in various supply chain risk assessments from the Office of Risk Assessment & Research (BuRO) were assessed in conjunction with the Dutch Animals Act and related legislation. A distinction was made between means- and goal-oriented legislation. The current Dutch Animals Act uses the “Five Freedoms” to define animal welfare. However, this seems outdated, given that current scientific insight also indicates that positive experiences should be included as an integral part of animal welfare. Currently, most welfare consequences in supply chains are linked to factors that are regulated by Dutch legislation as qualitative, goal-oriented, open standards. Furthermore, there is no species-specific legislation for some of the most common farm animals in the Netherlands, e.g., dairy cattle. By applying the latest scientific insights, both the current Dutch Animals Act and associated legislation can be improved to more appropriately manage animal welfare risks. As suggestions for improvement, we propose that the definition of animal welfare in the Dutch Animals Act is updated, that species-specific legislation for farm animals is developed where not already applicable, and that animal-based measures (ABMs) are integrated into legislation. As amendments to animal welfare legislation at the European level are currently being developed, our proposals to include the most recent scientific insights in animal welfare legislation also hold for European legislators.

The study objective was to examine the animal welfare status of Irish beef production farms using an animal welfare index (AWI). Beef production farms (n = 105) including suckler calf-to-beef (n = 30), suckler calf/weaning/finishing (n = 63), dairy calf-to-beef (n = 12) were assessed during the winter housing period using the AWI. Fifty-one indicators were grouped into six categories: 'locomotion'; six indicators, 'social interactions'; eight indicators, 'flooring'; four indicators, 'environment'; nine indicators, 'stockperson'; thirteen indicators and 'husbandry management' eleven indicators. Two indicators relating to the size of the farm and number of animals on the farm were also collected. The overall mean AWI percentage for the suckler calf-to-beef, suckler calf/weaning/finishing, dairy calf-to-beef farms were 70.3%, 71.9% and 66.6%, respectively. There was no difference (P > 0.05) in AWI between full-time and part-time farmers. This study demonstrated the application of the AWI for use in beef production systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The fish farming industry is characterized by settings where large numbers of fishes are raised together at high stocking densities, effectively obliterating the individual. Given that animal welfare is an individual attribute that refers to how an animal experiences her world, it follows that ensuring good welfare for the different individuals is difficult in fish farms. In this paper we review evidence supporting the notion that fishes are individuals and fish welfare should thus also be considered at the individual level, examine the ways that animal welfare is assessed in fish farms, evaluate these practices in light of individualized terrestrial animal welfare assessment methods, and make recommendations regarding research that could lead to a better understanding of how to provide each individual fish with good welfare in captivity. Welfare is an individual attribute. In general, providing captive nonhuman animals with conditions conducive to good welfare is an idea more easily applied when dealing with few individuals. However, this becomes much harder—if not impossible—under farming conditions that may imply high numbers of animals living in large group sizes. Although this is a problem inherent to intensive animal farming, it is possibly best exemplified in fish farming, for these practices often rely on extremely high numbers. In this paper we review evidence supporting the notion that fishes are individuals and fish welfare should thus also be considered at the individual level, examine the current state of welfare assessment in the aquaculture industry, evaluate these practices in light of individualized terrestrial animal welfare assessment methods, and make recommendations regarding research that could lead to a better understanding of how to provide each individual fish with good welfare in captivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: There is increasing appetite to understand how we can provide quality of life to farm animals. A framework to evaluate positive welfare opportunities for dairy cattle was developed using a participatory approach where farmer's recommendations were integrated into a scientific framework and piloted on farm by vets. When provided with the opportunity to collaborate, farmers and scientists broadly agree on what constitutes "a good life" for dairy cattle and worked together to develop an assessment framework. Farmers did not agree equally on the value of each positive welfare opportunity. However, farmers supported positive welfare assessment as a means of recognition and reward for higher animal welfare, within existing farm assurance schemes, and to justify national and global marketing claims of higher animal welfare. On-farm welfare assessment tends to focus on minimising negative welfare, but providing positive welfare is important in order to give animals a good life. This study developed a positive welfare framework for dairy cows based on the existing scientific literature which has focused on developing positive welfare indicators, and trialled a participatory approach with farmers; refining the framework based on their recommendations, followed by a vet pilot phase on farm. The results revealed that farmers and scientists agree on what constitutes "a good life" for dairy cattle. Farmers value positive welfare because they value their cows' quality of life, and want to be proud of their work, improve their own wellbeing as well as receive business benefits. For each good life resource, the proportion of farmers going above and beyond legislation ranged from 27 to 84%. Furthermore, barriers to achieving positive welfare opportunities, including monetary and time costs, were not apparently insurmountable if implementation costs were remunerated (by the government). However, the intrinsic value in providing such opportunities also incentivises farmers. Overall, most farmers appeared to support positive welfare assessment, with the largest proportion (50%) supporting its use within existing farm assurance schemes, or to justify national and global marketing claims. Collaborating with farmers to co-create policy is crucial to showcase and quantify the UK's high welfare standards, and to maximise engagement, relevance and uptake of animal welfare policy, to ensure continuous improvement and leadership in the quality of lives for farm animals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Paratuberculosis is a notable infectious disease of ruminants. Goats appear to be particularly susceptible. The survey aimed to investigate the spread of paratuberculosis in Italian goat farming and evaluate whether the presence of the disease could be influenced by welfare and biosecurity deficiencies. A serological survey for paratuberculosis in 33 dairy farms in northern Italy was conducted. Contextually, animal welfare and biosecurity were assessed, using a standardized protocol of 36 welfare indicators and 15 biosecurity indicators which assigns to each farm a welfare and biosecurity score from 0 (any application) to 100% (full application). An overall result of less than 60% was considered insufficient. Nineteen farms (58%) tested positive for paratuberculosis, with a mean intra-herd seroprevalence of 7.4%. Total welfare ranged from 39.56 to 90.7% (mean 68.64%). Biosecurity scores ranged from 10.04 to 90.01% (mean 57.57%). Eight farms (24%) showed poor welfare conditions (welfare score < 60%) and 19 (58%) an unsatisfactory biosecurity condition (biosecurity score < 60%). With respect to the explorative character of the study, an indicative association between seven welfare and biosecurity indicators and paratuberculosis seropositivity was identified. The presence of paratuberculosis in northern Italy dairy goat farms was confirmed. The welfare and biosecurity assessment protocol proved to be an accurate tool, capable of identifying critical points for managing health, welfare and productivity.

In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with protection of pigs during transport. The welfare of pigs during transport by road is the main focus, but other means of transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of pigs during the different stages (preparation, loading/unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 10 welfare consequences were identified as highly relevant for the welfare of pigs during transport based on the severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal‐based measures are described. A variety of hazards were identified, mainly relating to factors such as mixing of unfamiliar pigs, inappropriate handling methods and devices, the use of pick‐up pens, inexperienced/untrained handlers, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, poor driving conditions, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions and poor husbandry practices leading to these welfare consequences. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions relating to the different stages of transport of pigs. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences are made. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions and minimum space allowance within means of transport. The development of the welfare consequences over time was assessed in relation to maximum journey duration. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to transport of cull sows and ‘special health status animals’, and lists welfare concerns associated with these. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with protection of cattle (including calves) during transport. Welfare of cattle during transport by road is the main focus, but other means of transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of cattle during the different stages (preparation, loading/unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 11 welfare consequences were identified as being highly relevant for the welfare of cattle during transport based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, respiratory disorders, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal‐based measures are described. A variety of hazards, mainly relating to inexperienced/untrained handlers, inappropriate handling, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, poor driving conditions, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions, and poor husbandry practices leading to these welfare consequences were identified. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions relating to the different stages of transport for cattle. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences have been developed. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions within the means of transport and spatial thresholds (minimum space allowance). The development of welfare consequences over time was assessed in relation to maximum journey duration. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to transport of unweaned calves, cull cows, the export of cattle by livestock vessels, the export of cattle by road, roll‐on‐roll‐off ferries and 'special health status animals', and lists welfare concerns associated with these. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with the protection of small ruminants (sheep and goats) during transport. The main focus is on welfare of sheep during transport by road but other means of transport and concerns for welfare of goats during transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of sheep during the different stages (preparation, loading and unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 11 welfare consequences were identified as being highly relevant for the welfare of sheep during transport based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, predation stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal‐based measures are described. A wide variety of hazards, mainly relating to inappropriate or aggressive handling of animals, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions and poor husbandry practices, leading to these welfare consequences were identified. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions in relation to the different stages of transport. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences have been developed. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions within the means of transport and spatial thresholds (minimum space allowance). The development of welfare consequences over time were assessed in relation to maximum journey time. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to the export of sheep by livestock vessels, export of sheep by road, roll‐on‐roll‐off vessels and 'special health status animals', and lists welfare concerns associated with these. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Cetacean strandings occur globally and can impact the welfare as well as the survival of the animals involved. Understanding the welfare status of stranded cetaceans is important to inform appropriate human intervention. However, there is a lack of knowledge on how to assess animal welfare in this context. Here, we used video footage of live stranded animals of four odontocete species to explore which proposed welfare indicators can be assessed at live stranding events. We identified and evaluated potential indicators that could be non-invasively assessed, including 10 non-behavioural and 2 composite behavioural indicators (category of many behaviours). The first data on the fine-scale behaviour of stranded odontocetes and associated human intervention during stranding responses are presented. Our findings suggest that remote assessments of stranded cetacean's welfare states are feasible. These data provide the foundation to develop a systematic, structured welfare assessment framework specific to stranded cetaceans that can inform conservation and management decisions. Despite the known benefit of considering welfare within wildlife conservation and management, there remains a lack of data to inform such evaluations. To assess animal welfare, relevant information must be captured scientifically and systematically. A key first step is identifying potential indicators of welfare and the practicality of their measurement. We assessed the feasibility of evaluating potential welfare indicators from opportunistically gathered video footage of four stranded odontocete species (n = 53) at 14 stranding events around New Zealand. The first stranded cetacean ethogram was compiled, including 30 different behaviours, 20 of which were observed in all four species. Additionally, thirteen types of human intervention were classified. A subset of 49 live stranded long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas edwardii) were assessed to determine indicator prevalence and to quantify behaviours. Four 'welfare status' and six 'welfare alerting' non-behavioural indicators could be consistently evaluated from the footage. Additionally, two composite behavioural indicators were feasible. Three human intervention types (present, watering, and touching) and five animal behaviours (tail flutter, dorsal fin flutter, head lift, tail lift, and head side-to-side) were prevalent (>40% of individuals). Our study highlights the potential for non-invasive, remote assessments via video footage and represents an initial step towards developing a systematic, holistic welfare assessment framework for stranded cetaceans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document provides methodological guidance developed by the EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare to produce Scientific Opinions in response to mandates received from the European Commission in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy. The mandates relate to the welfare of (i) animals during transport, (ii) calves, (iii) laying hens, (iv) broilers, (v) pigs, (vi) ducks, geese and quails, and (vii) dairy cows. This guidance was developed in order to define the methods and strategy to be applied for responding to the Terms of Reference (ToRs) of the mandates. The mandates each consist of a set of General ToRs which refer to the husbandry systems used in the production of each animal species or the current transport practices for free moving animals and animals transported in cages, and a set of specific ToRs for which difficulties in ensuring animal welfare have been identified and where specific scenarios are envisaged. Part I of the guidance includes a description of welfare consequences for the animals. Part II includes a new methodology for providing quantitative recommendations regarding animal welfare. The proposed methodology follows the assumption that the effect of an exposure variable (e.g. space allowance) on animal welfare can be quantified by comparing the expression of an animal-based measure (ABM) under 'unexposed conditions' (e.g. unlimited space) and under high exposure (e.g. restrictive conditions). The level of welfare as assessed through this ABM can be quantified for different levels of the exposure variable (e.g. at increasing space allowances) and quantitative recommendations can thus be provided. The final version of the methodological guidance was endorsed for public consultation, which took place between 14 February 2022 and 31 March 2022. The comments received are integrated in this document. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with protection of cattle (including calves) during transport. Welfare of cattle during transport by road is the main focus, but other means of transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of cattle during the different stages (preparation, loading/unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 11 welfare consequences were identified as being highly relevant for the welfare of cattle during transport based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, respiratory disorders, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal‐based measures are described. A variety of hazards, mainly relating to inexperienced/untrained handlers, inappropriate handling, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, poor driving conditions, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions, and poor husbandry practices leading to these welfare consequences were identified. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions relating to the different stages of transport for cattle. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences have been developed. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions within the means of transport and spatial thresholds (minimum space allowance). The development of welfare consequences over time was assessed in relation to maximum journey duration. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to transport of unweaned calves, cull cows, the export of cattle by livestock vessels, the export of cattle by road, roll‐on‐roll‐off ferries and ‘special health status animals’, and lists welfare concerns associated with these.

Abstract In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with protection of pigs during transport. The welfare of pigs during transport by road is the main focus, but other means of transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of pigs during the different stages (preparation, loading/unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 10 welfare consequences were identified as highly relevant for the welfare of pigs during transport based on the severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal‐based measures are described. A variety of hazards were identified, mainly relating to factors such as mixing of unfamiliar pigs, inappropriate handling methods and devices, the use of pick‐up pens, inexperienced/untrained handlers, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, poor driving conditions, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions and poor husbandry practices leading to these welfare consequences. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions relating to the different stages of transport of pigs. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences are made. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions and minimum space allowance within means of transport. The development of the welfare consequences over time was assessed in relation to maximum journey duration. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to transport of cull sows and ‘special health status animals’, and lists welfare concerns associated with these.

Abstract In the framework of its Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission is undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of animal welfare legislation. The present Opinion deals with the protection of small ruminants (sheep and goats) during transport. The main focus is on welfare of sheep during transport by road but other means of transport and concerns for welfare of goats during transport are also covered. Current practices related to transport of sheep during the different stages (preparation, loading and unloading, transit and journey breaks) are described. Overall, 11 welfare consequences were identified as being highly relevant for the welfare of sheep during transport based on severity, duration and frequency of occurrence: group stress, handling stress, heat stress, injuries, motion stress, predation stress, prolonged hunger, prolonged thirst, restriction of movement, resting problems and sensory overstimulation. These welfare consequences and their animal‐based measures are described. A wide variety of hazards, mainly relating to inappropriate or aggressive handling of animals, structural deficiencies of vehicles and facilities, unfavourable microclimatic and environmental conditions and poor husbandry practices, leading to these welfare consequences were identified. The Opinion contains general and specific conclusions in relation to the different stages of transport. Recommendations to prevent hazards and to correct or mitigate welfare consequences have been developed. Recommendations were also developed to define quantitative thresholds for microclimatic conditions within the means of transport and spatial thresholds (minimum space allowance). The development of welfare consequences over time were assessed in relation to maximum journey time. The Opinion covers specific animal transport scenarios identified by the European Commission relating to the export of sheep by livestock vessels, export of sheep by road, roll‐on‐roll‐off vessels and ‘special health status animals’, and lists welfare concerns associated with these.

Abstract This document provides methodological guidance developed by the EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare to produce Scientific Opinions in response to mandates received from the European Commission in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy. The mandates relate to the welfare of (i) animals during transport, (ii) calves, (iii) laying hens, (iv) broilers, (v) pigs, (vi) ducks, geese and quails, and (vii) dairy cows. This guidance was developed in order to define the methods and strategy to be applied for responding to the Terms of Reference (ToRs) of the mandates. The mandates each consist of a set of General ToRs which refer to the husbandry systems used in the production of each animal species or the current transport practices for free moving animals and animals transported in cages, and a set of specific ToRs for which difficulties in ensuring animal welfare have been identified and where specific scenarios are envisaged. Part I of the guidance includes a description of welfare consequences for the animals. Part II includes a new methodology for providing quantitative recommendations regarding animal welfare. The proposed methodology follows the assumption that the effect of an exposure variable (e.g. space allowance) on animal welfare can be quantified by comparing the expression of an animal‐based measure (ABM) under ‘unexposed conditions’ (e.g. unlimited space) and under high exposure (e.g. restrictive conditions). The level of welfare as assessed through this ABM can be quantified for different levels of the exposure variable (e.g. at increasing space allowances) and quantitative recommendations can thus be provided. The final version of the methodological guidance was endorsed for public consultation, which took place between 14 February 2022 and 31 March 2022. The comments received are integrated in this document.

The monitoring and assessment of animals is important for their health and welfare. The appropriate selection of multiple, validated, and feasible welfare assessment indicators is required to effectively identify compromises or improvements to animal welfare. Animal welfare indicators can be animal or resource based. Indicators can be collated to form assessment tools (e.g., grimace scales) or animal welfare assessment models (e.g., 5 Domains) and frameworks (e.g., 5 Freedoms). The literature contains a wide variety of indicators, with both types needed for effective animal welfare assessment; however, there is yet to be an ideal constellation of indicators for animal-based welfare assessment in small mammals such as guinea pigs (Cavia Porcellus), mice (Mus musculus), rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), and rats (Rattus norvegicus). A systematic review of grey and peer-reviewed literature was performed to determine the types of animal-based welfare indicators available to identify and assess animal health and welfare in these small mammals maintained across a wide variety of conditions. The available indicators were categorised and scored against a selection of criteria, including potential ease of use and costs. This review and analysis aim to provide the basis for further research into animal welfare indicators for these species. Future applications of this work may include improvements to animal welfare assessments or schemes, guiding better management, and implementing future strategies to enable better animal welfare.

In 2017, an Austrian dairy company implemented a third-party animal-based assessment of health and welfare to stimulate welfare improvements on farms. Using this cross-sectional data set, we aimed at identifying prevailing welfare problems and associations thereof with main farm and management characteristics. Welfare outcome measures regarding body condition, cleanliness, diarrhea, integument alterations, claw condition, lameness, rising behavior, and avoidance distance toward humans were assessed by 13 trained observers. Data from health recordings and farm characteristics, such as housing system, feeding regimen, and pasture access, were collected via a questionnaire. Analyses included outcome measures from 23,749 individual cows on 1,221 farms [median (M) herd size = 19, interquartile range (IQR) = 16]. Herd-level prevalence of the outcome measures showed a high between-farm variability with highest median values for dirty lower hind leg (M = 46%, IQR = 47), signs of diarrhea (M = 28%, IQR = 39), and hairless patches on the tarsal joint (M = 21%, IQR = 36). Median prevalence of severe welfare problems, such as very lean cows, lesions, lameness, or mastitis treatments, were low compared with previously reported findings (very lean: 0%, IQR = 0; lesion tarsus: 0%, IQR = 4; moderately lame loose-housed: 7%, IQR = 16; mastitis treatments: 10%, IQR = 16). On half of the farms, at least 83% (IQR = 25) of the assessed cows could be touched in a standardized approach test, indicating a good human-animal relationship. Using generalized linear models, we found frequent associations with welfare outcome measures for the amount of milk delivered per cow (e.g., lower risk of very lean cows or dirty hind legs but higher risk of mastitis treatments or antibiotic dry-off with increasing milk delivery), housing system (e.g., loose-housed animals were at lower risk of lesions on the tarsal joint than animals kept in tiestalls, but at higher risk of being classified as very fat), and assessment period (winter vs. summer period). Beneficial associations were consistently found for an increasing number of days with access to pasture (e.g., body condition, integument alterations, lameness) as well as organic compared with conventional farming (e.g., integument alterations, claw health, lameness). Although the latter associations may be especially important for advisory services, in policy making, or when engaging with the public, other farm or management characteristics require careful attention, as they may have both beneficial as well as adverse impacts on welfare, calling for good management skills to avoid undesired effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Monitoring animal welfare (AW) in pig farms requires both proper indicators and a feasible approach. Animal-based measures (ABMs) are well-established AW indicators. Furthermore, AW screening at the slaughterhouses could be useful for identifying problems on farm. The aim of this study was to evaluate ABMs at the slaughterhouse and, when possible, to compare these ABMs with those collected on the farm. The study was carried out in northern Italy in a commercial abattoir and in a sample of farms. Animal-based measures were recorded on pigs from 62 batches of 54 farms, during ante-mortem (n=10 085 pigs) and post-mortem (n=7952 pigs) inspections. Sixteen of 54 farms were selected to compare ABMs collected at the slaughterhouse with ABMs collected on the farm. Overall, 2295 pigs (mean pigs examined per farm 119±45) were inspected at the slaughterhouse (group S) and 420 pigs (mean pigs per farm 26±5) on the farm (group F). Non-animal-based measures were also collected at the 16 farms. Differences between groups S and F, at the animal level, were assessed by a two-tailed paired Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test. Differences at the site of observation level (farm and slaughterhouse) were assessed by Fisher’s exact test using a hierarchical log-linear modelling for contingency tables. The most frequent ABMs at the slaughterhouse were manure on the body (47.7%), followed by dermatitis (28.0%), white spot (25.4%) and bursitis (24.7%). Recording ABMs at the slaughterhouse and on the farm usually yielded similar results; however, there were some exceptions. In particular, significant differences were found for non-uniformity of size (P

Copyright of Manas Journal of Agriculture Veterinary & Life Sciences is the property of Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

On-farm welfare assessment tends to focus on minimising negative welfare, but providing positive welfare is important in order to give animals a good life. This study developed a positive welfare framework for dairy cows based on the existing scientific literature which has focused on developing positive welfare indicators, and trialled a participatory approach with farmers; refining the framework based on their recommendations, followed by a vet pilot phase on farm. The results revealed that farmers and scientists agree on what constitutes “a good life” for dairy cattle. Farmers value positive welfare because they value their cows’ quality of life, and want to be proud of their work, improve their own wellbeing as well as receive business benefits. For each good life resource, the proportion of farmers going above and beyond legislation ranged from 27 to 84%. Furthermore, barriers to achieving positive welfare opportunities, including monetary and time costs, were not apparently insurmountable if implementation costs were remunerated (by the government). However, the intrinsic value in providing such opportunities also incentivises farmers. Overall, most farmers appeared to support positive welfare assessment, with the largest proportion (50%) supporting its use within existing farm assurance schemes, or to justify national and global marketing claims. Collaborating with farmers to co-create policy is crucial to showcase and quantify the UK’s high welfare standards, and to maximise engagement, relevance and uptake of animal welfare policy, to ensure continuous improvement and leadership in the quality of lives for farm animals.

Despite the known benefit of considering welfare within wildlife conservation and management, there remains a lack of data to inform such evaluations. To assess animal welfare, relevant information must be captured scientifically and systematically. A key first step is identifying potential indicators of welfare and the practicality of their measurement. We assessed the feasibility of evaluating potential welfare indicators from opportunistically gathered video footage of four stranded odontocete species (n = 53) at 14 stranding events around New Zealand. The first stranded cetacean ethogram was compiled, including 30 different behaviours, 20 of which were observed in all four species. Additionally, thirteen types of human intervention were classified. A subset of 49 live stranded long-finned pilot whales (Globicephala melas edwardii) were assessed to determine indicator prevalence and to quantify behaviours. Four ‘welfare status’ and six ‘welfare alerting’ non-behavioural indicators could be consistently evaluated from the footage. Additionally, two composite behavioural indicators were feasible. Three human intervention types (present, watering, and touching) and five animal behaviours (tail flutter, dorsal fin flutter, head lift, tail lift, and head side-to-side) were prevalent (>40% of individuals). Our study highlights the potential for non-invasive, remote assessments via video footage and represents an initial step towards developing a systematic, holistic welfare assessment framework for stranded cetaceans.

Background: The approach to farm animal welfare evaluation has changed and animal-based measures (ABM), defined as the responses of an animal or effects on an animal, were introduced to assess animal welfare. Animal-based measures can be taken directly on the animal or indirectly and include the use of animal records. They can result from a specific event or be the cumulative outcome of many days, weeks, or months. The objective of the current study was to analyze the use of general ABM codified terms in the scientific literature, the presence of their definitions, and the gap mapping of their use across animal species, categories, years of publication, and geographical areas of the corresponding author's institution. The ultimate aim was to propose a common standard terminology to improve communication among stakeholders. In this study, data models were populated by collecting information coming from scientific papers extracted through a transparent and reproducible protocol using Web of ScienceTM and filtering for the general ABM codified terms (or synonyms/equivalents). A total of 199 papers were retained, and their full texts were assessed. The frequency of general codified ABM terms was analyzed according to the classification factors listed in the objectives. These papers were prevalently European (159 documents), and the most represented species was cattle. Fifty percent of the papers did not provide a definition of the general ABM terms, and 54% cited other sources as reference for their definition. The results of the study showed a very low penetration of the general codified ABM term in the literature on farm animal welfare, with only 1.5% of the papers including the term ABM. This does not mean that specific ABM are not studied, but rather that these specific ABM are not defined as such under a common umbrella, and there is no consensus on the use of terminology, not even among scientists. Thus, we cannot expect the stakeholders to use a common language and a standardized terminology. The recognition and the inclusion of ABM in the lists of commonly accepted abbreviations of scientific journals could be a first step to harmonize the terminology in the scientific literature.

• Comparisons of different ammonia measuring devices (hand-held vs. sensor). • Ammonia concentration is influenced by farm, season, age of pigs and barn. • No good agreement between all three measuring devices. • Significant connection between ammonia and some on-farm/slaughterhouse indicators. Since negative effects of ammonia (NH 3) on health and productivity are known NH 3 concentrations should be considered a possible indicator of animal welfare. Thus, a simple and reliable control of NH 3 concentrations is necessary. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate factors influencing two hand-held measuring devices - the 'Basic Ammonia Detector-NH3000' ammonia meter (AM) and the 'Dräger accuro®' gas detection pump (DA) – and the continuously measuring 'DOL53 Ammonia Sensor' (DOL) with regard to their practical use in pig houses and to compare them in terms of their reliability. Subsequently, the suitability of NH 3 as a welfare indicator was considered by analyzing the connections of NH 3 to different on-farm/slaughterhouse welfare indicators. The NH 3 concentration on three farms (farm A: organic; farms B, C: conventional) over three to four batches from farrowing to the end of finishing were measured weekly with the AM (n = 284) and the DA (n = 142). In addition, the DOL (n = 77,170) measured the NH 3 concentration every 15 min and revealed its daily course. The influence of the farm on NH 3 , investigated with a linear mixed model, was significant (P ≤ 0.05) for all three measuring devices. The freely ventilated farm A showed the lowest NH 3 of all farms (mean DOL 0.69 ppm), which could be caused by a lower animal density, litter and an outdoor arena, compared to the mechanically ventilated farms B (mean DOL 12.4 ppm) and C (mean DOL 10.6 ppm). The season was a further significantly (P ≤ 0.05) influencing factor for the farms B and C, which was reflected in higher NH 3 in winter compared to summer. This could be due to a lower ventilation rate and different animal behavior, because of lower outdoor temperatures in winter. Continuous measurement with the DOL also showed influences of the production stage of the pigs, with highest values with increasing age and the barn. The comparison of the AM and DA with the DOL did not achieve acceptable reliability/agreement. Hand-held devices cannot record variations in the NH 3 concentration due to the non-continuous measurement, which may lead to wrong conclusions. A strong relationship between the NH 3 number ≥20 ppm per batch and the number of affected animals of the on-farm/slaughterhouse indicators determined by significant (P < 0.05) Chi2 Tests and Cramér's V ≥ 0.60 could be detected for coughing (V = 0.89), tail length (V = 0.81), tail lesions (V = 0.60) and M. hyopneumoniae (V = 1.00). These findings indicate NH 3 as a potential indicator of animal welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Germany all keepers of livestock are legally required to record animal welfare indicators as part of their on-farm self-assessment. The Association for Technology and Structures in Agriculture (Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL)) has suggested the use of a particular set of animal welfare indicators in their publication Animal welfare indicators: Practical guide – Pigs. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the inter-observer reliability (Inter-OR) and intra-observer reliability (Intra-OR) of these indicators with respect to the welfare of fattening pigs. For the assessment of Inter-OR, three observers evaluated six KTBL animal welfare indicators. The Inter-OR of the indicators was calculated from the results using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). ‘Excellent’ Inter-OR results were found for the indicators tail length (ICC 0.89), skin lesions (ICC 0.77) and ear lesions (ICC 0.80). In contrast, the Inter-OR of the indicators tail lesions (ICC 0.46) and faecal soiling (ICC 0.47) were considered to be only ‘fair’ and that of the indicator lameness (ICC 0.36) as ‘poor’. For the evaluation of the Intra-OR, the same three observers assessed the welfare of 162 to 200 fattening pigs using the same welfare indicators in total eight times. Again ICCs, here per indicator and observer, were used to calculate the Intra-OR. The Intra-OR of the indicators faecal soiling (ICC 0.81) and ear lesions (ICC 0.97) lay in the ‘excellent’ range on average. While the Intra-OR of the indicators skin lesions (ICC 0.67), tail length (ICC 0.74) and lameness (ICC 0.60) could still be considered as being ‘good’, the Intra-OR of the indicator tail lesions (ICC 0.52) could only be assessed as being ‘fair’. From these results the significance of the KTBL indicators could be judged as follows: it is possible to use all the chosen indicators apart from the indicator tail lesions as an internal controlling instrument or as part of an internal weak-point analysis as long as the indicators are evaluated by the same person. A comparison of the indicators tail lesions, lameness and faecal soiling when assessed by different observers should be considered critically because the Inter-OR of these three indicators could only be considered as being ‘poor’ to ‘fair’.

Scientific assessment of the impacts of trapping on mammal welfare is necessary to inform cost-benefit analyses of using traps in wildlife management, improve trap performance and trapping processes and develop international trap standards. The Sharp and Saunders humaneness assessment model was developed specifically for assessing welfare impacts in vertebrate wildlife management and has been used to assess the impacts of trapping various mammals. It is a specific version of the more general Five Domains model for welfare assessment which is based on the understanding that welfare state reflects the sum of the animal’s mental experiences. Our experience of applying the Sharp and Saunders model allows us to make key recommendations for those wishing to use it. First, the exact parameters of the trapping scenario to be assessed must be decided. Second, assessments should be based on published data, as well as integrating both scientific and practitioner expertise to provide rigorous and relevant outcomes. Third, conclusions about welfare impacts should be based on the appropriate indicators. As far as is possible, mental experiences should be inferred using animal-based indicators, and some representation should be provided of the scorers’ confidence in the data on which assessment is based. Careful consideration of these points will help optimize the value of information produced using the model for wildlife management decision-making.

The present study’s aim was to test a German guideline for farm’s self-monitoring in sows and piglets for its feasibility as well as its interobserver and test–retest reliability. The study was performed between September 2016 and April 2018 on 13 farrowing farms in Northern Germany. Contrary to the guideline, the testing was not carried out by the farmers themselves but by 2 observers with experience in pigs representing common farmers. For the interobserver reliability study, the observers performed 20 joint farm visits independently assessing the same animals. For the test–retest reliability study, each farm was visited 5 times by 1 observer (day 0, day 3, week 7, month 5, month 10). Farm visit 1 (day 0) was used as reference and compared with the remaining farm visits. The reliability was evaluated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and limits of agreement (LoA). As results, the guideline’s feasibility was limited. The indicators’ reliability also presented divergent results: All indicators in piglets revealed acceptable to good interobserver reliability (RS 0.64 to 0.77 ICC 0.33 to 0.48 LoA between the intervals −0.02 to 0.13 and −0.02 to 0.00). Contrarily, interobserver reliability was low for indicators in sows (e.g., claw alterations: RS −0.41 ICC 0.00 LoA −0.97 to 0.68). Overall acceptable test–retest reliability could be assigned to all indicators although no exact agreement existed but only the pursuit of trends is indicated. On the basis of the present results, the guideline in its present form cannot be recommended for farms’ self-monitoring. Given the restricted applicability, it should be reconsidered whether it might not be more appropriate to use scientifically tested and generally accepted animal welfare assessment systems such as the Welfare Quality animal welfare assessment protocols, although their application is also time-consuming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research communication explores the value of routinely collected bulk tank milk quality data for estimating dairy cattle welfare at herd level. Selected bulk tank milk quality parameters (somatic cell count, total bacterial count, urea, protein and fat contents) recorded during the years 2014–2016 in 287 Italian dairy farms were compared with the animal welfare data of each farm. The welfare assessment data were extracted from the database of the Italian Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (CReNBA), which includes the outputs of the application of the CReNBA welfare assessment protocol for dairy cows, used at national level for on-farm controls. The statistical analysis was carried out using the correlation coefficient for Kendall's Tau ranks, in order to investigate the presence of a categoric relationship between the selected bulk tank milk quality parameters and the overall animal welfare score or the scores of the single areas A (farm management and staff training), B (housing) and C (animal-based measures). Somatic cell count, total bacterial count, urea and proteins demonstrated only a few statistically significant and very weak correlations with farm animal welfare data, while no significant correlations were obtained for milk fat content. Given the weak correlations found, the selected bulk tank milk parameters seems to be able to provide only limited information about the welfare level of the herd, thus it could be difficult to use them for drawing up a pre-screening model for identifying herds at risk of poor welfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Monitoring animal welfare (AW) in pig farms requires both proper indicators and a feasible approach. Animal-based measures (ABMs) are well-established AW indicators. Furthermore, AW screening at the slaughterhouses could be useful for identifying problems on farm. The aim of this study was to evaluate ABMs at the slaughterhouse and, when possible, to compare these ABMs with those collected on the farm. The study was carried out in northern Italy in a commercial abattoir and in a sample of farms. Animal-based measures were recorded on pigs from 62 batches of 54 farms, during ante-mortem (n =10 085 pigs) and post-mortem (n =7952 pigs) inspections. Sixteen of 54 farms were selected to compare ABMs collected at the slaughterhouse with ABMs collected on the farm. Overall, 2295 pigs (mean pigs examined per farm 119±45) were inspected at the slaughterhouse (group S) and 420 pigs (mean pigs per farm 26±5) on the farm (group F). Non-animal-based measures were also collected at the 16 farms. Differences between groups S and F, at the animal level, were assessed by a two-tailed paired Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test. Differences at the site of observation level (farm and slaughterhouse) were assessed by Fisher's exact test using a hierarchical log-linear modelling for contingency tables. The most frequent ABMs at the slaughterhouse were manure on the body (47.7%), followed by dermatitis (28.0%), white spot (25.4%) and bursitis (24.7%). Recording ABMs at the slaughterhouse and on the farm usually yielded similar results; however, there were some exceptions. In particular, significant differences were found for non-uniformity of size (P <0.05) and dermatitis (P <0.001), which were higher at the slaughterhouse than on the farm. Results of log-linear modelling underlined the effect of the farm of origin on the percentage of pigs with bursitis, manure on the body and ear injuries that were observed at the slaughterhouse. In group S, significant associations between manure on the body and insufficient presence of clean and dry areas in the corresponding farm were found (P <0.05). Although these results should be interpreted with care due to the limited sample of farms, the slaughterhouse could be a feasible site of observation of ABMs, which could then be integrated in monitoring of AW on farm. Considering the number of slaughtered batches per farm, it would be possible to repeat assessments several times throughout the year for each farm, which could help provide an index for the continuous monitoring of AW. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Animal welfare has become an important subject of public and political debate, leading to the necessity of an objective evaluation system for on-farm use. As welfare is a multi-dimensional concept, it makes sense to use a multi-criteria aggregation system to obtain an overall welfare score. Such an aggregation system is provided by the Welfare Quality® Network. The present paper focusses on the assessment of the multi-criteria evaluation model included in the Welfare Quality® protocol for growing pigs in order to aggregate the animal-based indicators first to criteria, then to principles and finally to an overall welfare score. Specifically, the importance of the indicators on the overall assessment of growing pig farms is analysed in a given population which consisted of a total of 198 protocol assessments carried out on a sample of 24 farms in Germany. By means of partial least squares modelling, the influence of measures in the calculation procedure is estimated by calculation and interpretation of Variable Importance for Projection (VIP) scores. Variable Importance for Projection scores revealed some meaningful, unexpected influences as the multi-criteria evaluation model of Welfare Quality® aimed at avoiding interferences and double-counting. Some of these influences led to the assumption that some measures might have potential as iceberg indicators, whereas others showed lesser importance. Thus, feasibility can be gained by the deletion and special weighting of indicators according to their importance. Altogether, the study is an essential contribution to the further development of the Welfare Quality® protocols as well as the application of multi-criteria decision systems in the field of animal welfare science in general.

Increasingly, human activities, including those aimed at conserving species and ecosystems (conservation activities) influence not only the survival and fitness but also the welfare of wild animals. Animal welfare relates to how an animal is experiencing its life and encompasses both its physical and mental states. While conservation biology and animal welfare science are both multi-disciplinary fields that use scientific methods to address concerns about animals, their focus and objectives sometimes appear to conflict. However, activities impacting detrimentally on the welfare of individual animals also hamper achievement of some conservation goals, and societal acceptance is imperative to the continuation of conservation activities. Thus, the best outcomes for both disciplines will be achieved through collaboration and knowledge-sharing. Despite this recognition, cross-disciplinary information-sharing and collaborative research and practice in conservation are still rare, with the exception of the zoo context. This paper summarizes key points developed by a group of conservation and animal welfare scientists discussing scientific assessment of wild animal welfare and barriers to progress. The dominant theme emerging was the need for a common language to facilitate cross-disciplinary progress in understanding and safeguarding the welfare of animals of wild species. Current conceptions of welfare implicit in conservation science, based mainly on “fitness” (physical states), need to be aligned with contemporary animal welfare science concepts which emphasize the dynamic integration of “fitness” and “feelings” (mental experiences) to holistically understand animals' welfare states. The way in which animal welfare is characterized influences the way it is evaluated and the emphasis put on different features of welfare, as well as, the importance placed on the outcomes of such evaluations and how that information is used, for example in policy development and decision-making. Salient examples from the New Zealand and Australian context are presented to illustrate. To genuinely progress our understanding and evaluation of wild animal welfare and optimize the aims of both scientific disciplines, conservation and animal welfare scientists should work together to evolve and apply a common understanding of welfare. To facilitate this, we propose the formal development of a new discipline, Conservation Welfare, integrating the expertise of scientists from both fields.

Since animal experiments cannot be completely avoided, the pain, suffering, and distress of laboratory animals must be minimized. To this end, a major prerequisite is reliable assessment of pain and distress. Usually, evaluation of animal welfare is done by visual inspection and score sheets. However, relatively little is known about whether standardized, but subjective, score sheets are able to reliably reflect the status of the animals. The current study aimed to compare visual assessment scores and changes in body weight with concentrations of fecal corticosterone metabolites (FCMs) in a neuroscientific experimental setup. Additionally, effects of refinement procedures were investigated. Eight male adult Sprague-Dawley rats underwent several experimental interventions, including electroencephalograph electrode implantation and subsequent recording, positron emission tomography (PET), and sleep deprivation (SD) by motorized activity wheels. Additional 16 rats were either used as controls without any treatment or to evaluate refinement strategies. Stress responses were determined on a daily basis by means of measuring FCMs, body weight, and evaluation of the animals’ welfare by standardized score sheets. Surgery provoked a significant elevation of FCM levels for up to five days. Increases in FCMs due to PET procedures or SD in activity wheels were also highly significant, while visual assessment scores did not indicate elevated stress levels and body weights remained constant. Visual assessment scores correlate with neither changes in body weight nor increases in FCM levels. Habituation procedures to activity wheels used for SD had no impact on corticosterone release. Our results revealed that actual score sheets for visual assessment of animal welfare did not mirror physiological stress responses assessed by FCM measurements. Moreover, small changes in body weight did not correlate with FCM concentration either. In conclusion, as visual assessment is a method allowing immediate interventions on suffering animals to alleviate burden, timely stress assessment in experimental rodents via score sheets should be ideally complemented by validated objective measures (e.g., fecal FCM measured by well-established assays for reliable detection of FCMs). This will complete a comprehensive appraisal of the animals’ welfare status in a retrospective manner and refine stressor procedures in the long run.

Welfare in animal husbandry includes considerations of biology, ethics, ecology, law and economics. These diverse aspects must be translated into common quantifiable parameters and applicable methods to objectively assess welfare in animals. To assist this process in the field of aquaculture, where such methods are largely missing, we developed a model to assess fish welfare. A network of information was created to link needs, i.e., fundamental requirements for welfare, with parameters, i.e., quantifiable aspects of welfare. From this ontology, 80 parameters that are relevant for welfare, have practicable assessment methods and deliver reliable results were selected and incorporated into a model. The model, named MyFishCheck, allows the evaluation of welfare in five distinct modules: farm management, water quality, fish group behaviour, fish external and fish internal appearance, thereby yielding five individual grades categorising welfare ranging from critical, to poor, to acceptable, and good. To facilitate the use of the model, a software application was written. With its adaptability to different fish species, farming systems, regulations and purposes as well as its user-friendly digital version, MyFishCheck is a next step towards improved fish welfare assessment and provides a basis for ongoing positive developments for the industry, the farmers and the fish.

Keel bone damage (KBD) can be found in all commercial laying hen flocks with a wide range of 23% to 69% of hens/flock found to be affected in this study. As KBD may be linked with chronic pain and a decrease in mobility, it is a serious welfare problem. An automatic assessment system at the slaughter line could support the detection of KBD and would have the advantage of being standardized and fast scoring including high sample sizes. A 2MP stereo camera combined with an IDS imaging color camera was used for the automatic assessment. A trained human assessor visually scored KBD in defeathered hens during the slaughter process and compared results with further human assessors and automatic recording. In a first step, an algorithm was developed on the basis of assessments of keel status of 2287 hens of different genetics with varying degrees of KBD. In two optimization steps, performance data were calculated, and flock prevalences were determined, which were compared between the assessor and the automatic system. The proposed technique finally reached a sensitivity of 0.95, specificity of 0.77, accuracy of 0.86 and precision of 0.81. In the last optimization step, the automatic system scored on average about 10.5% points lower KBD prevalences than the human assessor. However, a proposed change of scoring system (setting the limit for KBD at 0.5 cm deviation from the straight line) would lower this deviation. We conclude that the developed automatic scoring technique is a reliable and potentially valuable tool for the assessment of KBD.

A proposed animal welfare assessment protocol for semi-arid rangeland-based cow–calf systems in Namibia combined 40 measures from a protocol developed for beef cattle in New Zealand with additional Namibia-specific measures. Preliminary validation of the protocol had been undertaken with five herds in one semi-commercial village. The aim of the current study was to apply this protocol and compare animal welfare across three cow–calf production systems in Namibia. A total of 2529 beef cows were evaluated during pregnancy testing in the yards of 17 commercial, 20 semi-commercial, and 18 communal (total: 55) herds followed by an assessment of farm resources and a questionnaire-guided interview. Non-parametric tests were used to evaluate the difference in the welfare scores between the production systems. The results indicated a discrepancy of animal welfare between the three farm types, with a marked separation of commercial farms from semi-commercial, and communal village farms in the least. The differences in these production systems were mainly driven by economic gains through access to better beef export market for commercial farms and semi-commercial villages, as well as by the differences in the available grazing land, facility designs/quality, and traditional customs in the village systems. The results indicate an advantage of commercialization over communalization.

This paper aims to develop standards for a welfare assessment protocol by validating potential categorisation thresholds for assessing beef farms in various beef cow-calf production systems in Namibia. Forty measures, combined from a New Zealand-based protocol plus Namibia-specific measures, are applied to 55 beef farms (17 commercial farms, 20 semi-commercial and 18 communal village farms) during pregnancy testing, and a questionnaire guided interview. The categorised measures on a 3-point welfare score (0: good, 1: marginal, and 2: poor/unacceptable welfare) are subsequently compared with the derivation of thresholds based upon the poorest 15% and best 50% of herds for each measure. The overall combined thresholds of continuous measures across the three farm types show 10/22 measures that posed welfare compromise across Namibia, whereas commercial farms have 4/22 measures, and semi-commercial and communal village farms have 12/22 and 11/22, respectively, with high thresholds. Most measures-imposed thresholds are retained because of significant importance to the welfare of animals and preventiveness of the traits, while leniency was given to adjust good feeding and mortality measures to signify periods of drought. Handling measures (fearful, falling/lying) and abrasions thresholds are adjusted to reflect the temporary stress caused by infrequent cattle handling, and faulty yard designs/design and possible cattle breed influence on handling. Hence, Namibia needs prioritised investigation of underlying contributing factors and remediation to reduce the high thresholds.

In Germany all keepers of livestock are legally required to record animal welfare indicators as part of their on-farm self-assessment. The Association for Technology and Structures in Agriculture (Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL)) has suggested the use of a particular set of animal welfare indicators in their publication A nimal welfare indicators: P ractical guide – P igs. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the inter-observer reliability (Inter-OR) and intra-observer reliability (Intra-OR) of these indicators with respect to the welfare of fattening pigs. For the assessment of Inter-OR, three observers evaluated six KTBL animal welfare indicators. The Inter-OR of the indicators was calculated from the results using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). 'Excellent' Inter-OR results were found for the indicators tail length (ICC 0.89), skin lesions (ICC 0.77) and ear lesions (ICC 0.80). In contrast, the Inter-OR of the indicators tail lesions (ICC 0.46) and faecal soiling (ICC 0.47) were considered to be only 'fair' and that of the indicator lameness (ICC 0.36) as 'poor'. For the evaluation of the Intra-OR, the same three observers assessed the welfare of 162 to 200 fattening pigs using the same welfare indicators in total eight times. Again ICCs, here per indicator and observer, were used to calculate the Intra-OR. The Intra-OR of the indicators faecal soiling (ICC 0.81) and ear lesions (ICC 0.97) lay in the 'excellent' range on average. While the Intra-OR of the indicators skin lesions (ICC 0.67), tail length (ICC 0.74) and lameness (ICC 0.60) could still be considered as being 'good', the Intra-OR of the indicator tail lesions (ICC 0.52) could only be assessed as being 'fair'. From these results the significance of the KTBL indicators could be judged as follows: it is possible to use all the chosen indicators apart from the indicator tail lesions as an internal controlling instrument or as part of an internal weak-point analysis as long as the indicators are evaluated by the same person. A comparison of the indicators tail lesions, lameness and faecal soiling when assessed by different observers should be considered critically because the Inter-OR of these three indicators could only be considered as being 'poor' to 'fair'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • different behavioural tests for growing pigs were assessed for reliability on-farm. • evaluation of usefulness and trustworthiness in on-farm use of behavioural tests. • for all tests, the interobserver reliability was in general acceptable. • test-retest reliability specifically insufficient when different pigs were tested. • contribution to knowledge concerning behavioural tests in general. Abstract Behavioural tests might have the potential to evaluate certain aspects of welfare such as emotional state or the human-animal relationship. However, reliability assessments of these tests are rare. Therefore, in this study, different behavioural tests for growing pigs were assessed regarding their on-farm reliability. Eleven growing pig farms were visited three times each by two experienced observers. The farm visits took place with a time interval of one week in between the first and the second farm visits and a time interval of four weeks in between the first and the third farm visits, i.e. the second and the third farm visits were three weeks apart. During the second farm visit, exactly the same animals were tested while at the third farm visit, other animals were tested. The observers carried out a Novel object test (NOT), a Voluntary human approach test (VHAT), a Forced human approach test (FHAT) and a Human-Animal Relationship Test (HART) at group level in the home pen of the pigs. The results of the different farm visits and observers, respectively, were compared by a combination of statistical parameters: Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), limits of agreement (LoA) and smallest detectable change (SDC). The interobserver reliability was in general acceptable for all tests (e.g. NOT: RS: 0.50, ICC: 0.56, SDC: 2.47, LoA: −2.49–2.28) to good (e.g. FHAT: RS: 0.98, ICC: 0.98, SDC: 0.23, LoA: −0.22–0.25). The test-retest reliability, on the contrary, was rather insufficient: only in the comparison of the first to the second farm visits did RS and ICC reach values of ≥0.40 for the FHAT and HART (for some categories). However, the deviation between the two observers detected by SDC and LoA were above 10%. No reliability was detected for the other two comparisons as well as for all comparisons of the NOT and VHAT, (e.g. VHAT, first to second farm visit: RS: 0.15, ICC: 0.04, SDC: 30.2, LoA: −24.5–38.6). Thus, it can be concluded that interobserver reliability was sufficient, while in the form of these behavioural tests used consistency over time at the moment remains insufficient. Hence, with regard to welfare assessment schemes, this aspect must be taken into account and future work should concentrate on recategorisation, enhancement of knowledge concerning the validity of these tests in different settings as well as possible alternatives. Nevertheless, the good interobserver reliability points out a potential usefulness of these tests for other purposes i.e. whether the animals need to be tested only once throughout their lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]