Animal Welfare Assessment
Animal welfare awareness features as one of the fundamental principles of organic farming. There are a number of approaches that may be adopted to measure and assess animal welfare although it is accepted that no one measure used alone is sufficient to accurately determine welfare status (Mason & Mendl, 1993; Fraser, 2003). Practical measures of animal welfare assessment that can be used at the farm level as planning and inspection tools and quality assurance indicators need to be inexpensive, not too time consuming, simple and applicable to groups of animals whilst also being repeatable and objective giving valid results (Scott et al, 2001; Hörning, 2001; Sorensen & Sandoe, 2001).
Input or resource based welfare assessments include assessing the environment such as housing (e.g. bedding type), animal aspects (e.g. stocking density and nutrition), and human aspects (e.g. cleaning regime). These factors are often easy to quantify and record, and although they do not guarantee good welfare, they should be a pre-requisite for good welfare (Johnsen et al, 2001).
Freedom Food is the RSPCA’s welfare focused farm assurance and as such includes welfare assessment. However, this is based solely on input measures with no direct animal or stockman indicators incorporated into the standards (Anon, 2007).
Output based welfare assessments based include physical inspection of animals (e.g. lameness, skin lesions), behaviour observation (e.g. play, fearfulness, coughing) and reviewing records (e.g. lameness and mastitis incidence) (University of Bristol 2004). Outcome based welfare assessments are a more direct measure of welfare but can more difficult and time consuming to record and interpret (Johnsen et al, 2001).
The Bristol Welfare Assurance Programme (BWAP) is solely an outcome based assessment (University of Bristol, 2004) which includes observations of physical conditions and animal behaviour as well as examination of the farm disease history and treatment recording.
Output measures do not always need to be negative measures e.g the presence of skin lesions. Positive indicators, such as those related to natural behaviour, can also be important considerations measuring “positive welfare”. Although several output based welfare assessments have been developed, few incorporate the positive aspects of welfare. It appears it is easier to use the ‘stick’, and forget the ‘carrot’ approach. Whilst the demonstration of lack of negative traits is very important within welfare assessment, it has been suggested that the expression of positive behaviour also has a definite value (Yeates and Main, 2007; Boissy et al, 2007; University of Bristol, 2004; Veissier et al, 2007; Webster, 2005; Mullan, 2007a & b).
Both qualitative and quantitative approaches are incorporated into existing systems of welfare assessment. Outcome based welfare assessments are generally quantitative in that they tend to record scores of severity or the presence/absence of physical parameters. Although systems of qualitative assessments that involve subjective assessments of welfare have been effectively demonstrated (Wemelsfelder, 2007); Rousing and Wemelsfelder, 2006 and Wemelsfelder et al., 2001) these tend to focus on subjective experience and not natural living and biological functioning and are therefore best used in conjunction with quantitative outcome based parameters.
Indexing assessments are based on a list of parameters for which the presence/absence /degree is given a numerical rating or weighting. An overall total provides a measure of welfare which can be compared with minimum, target or threshold totals. The ANI 35L, TGI 200 and ALD are examples. There is a risk when using such an approach that some low scores may be balanced by high scores and therefore the weighting process is critical with sufficient emphasis on the important parameters (Aerts, 2006) and minimum standards set to prevent over-compensation (Spoolder et al., 2003). Although welfare indices are viewed as simple and practical, systematic tool, based on scientific literature and demonstrating high repeatability (Spoolder et al., 2003), they do not incorporate animal based parameters (Hörning, 2001).
The Animal Needs Index (ANI) or Tiegerechtheitsindex (TGI) has been developed and used in Austria on housed animals for more than 15 years as both a marketing and legislation tool (Bartussek, 2000). A refined version, the ANI 35L, has been used in Austrian organic certification since 1995. The system includes measures associated with possibility of mobility, social contact, floor condition, indoor climate and quality of human care (Bartussek, 2001). An adaptation, the TGI 200, is used in organic farming in Germany (Bennedsgaard & Thamsborg, 2000) and is based on measures of locomotion, feeding, social behaviour, resting, comfort, hygiene and human care) as well as some behavioural assessments.
Other input based systems include the Assessment scheme for loose Litter housing systems of Dairy cows (ALD) (Hörning, 2001), the Unitary Welfare Index (UWI) for assessing broiler chicken welfare and including animal and environmental based assessments (Haslam and Kestin, 2004) and the yet unvalidated Five Freedoms Index for loose-housed dairy cattle (Capdeville & Veissier, 2001).
The Welfare Quality® project is an EC funded project aiming to improve animal welfare through the development of scientifically based tools to measure welfare, useful product information systems and practical strategies (Blokhuis, 2005) which, when complete, will provide a continent wide approach.
In Norway, the Organic Cow Comfort advisory tool has been developed to ensure high animal welfare on organic dairy farms by focusing on advice and creating a positive dialogue between farmer, vet and advisor (Henriksen et al, 2006).
The Ethical Account for Livestock Farming was developed solely for use as an advisory tool incorporating indicators of the system, system applications, behaviour and diseases and although technically successful, has proved to be too costly and time-consuming for practical application (Sørensen et al, 2001).
Benchmarking
Burke and Roderick (2006) conducted detailed interviews with 28 organic farmers who had participated in dairy herd welfare assessment. Generally, participation raised awareness of health and welfare, and resulted in keenness to affect change, particularly with regard to lameness, cleanliness, injury and condition score. However, there were also negative experiences of the process, with some participants experiencing feelings of failure and disappointment and concern that results would be mis-interpreted and mis-used. Some farmers criticised elements of the assessment, and in particular the use of low and mild indicators applied to measures of dirtiness, lameness and injuries. As well as being viewed as too subjective and overly harsh, it was felt the assessments did not reflect efforts to tackle these issues. The working relationship with the farm veterinarian, frequency of assessment, and expertise of the assessor were thought to be key factors influencing the use of routine assessment within health planning, as was the likely success of the health plan itself. Financial restrictions, particularly for structural changes, were highlighted as the most significant factor likely to influence changes resulting from welfare assessment (Burke, 2006).