BrightAnimal Project, Tartu 2010

The Virtuous Bicycle: A Delivery Vehicle for improved Animal Welfare

John WebsterUniversity of Bristol,

Emeritus

Precision livestock farming• Health, environment, welfare and behaviour

– Gather information –monitoring– Use the information – strategic planning– Improve the system – evidence of effective action– Reward improvements – increased recognition, value

Monitoring: elements of good husbandry and animal welfare

Provision HUSBANDRY

Outcome WELFARE

MANAGEMENT procedures stockmanship

RESOURCES food accommodation

RECORDS health fertility

FITNESS FEELINGS

Aim of husbandry/aspiration of animal“Wellbeing”

‘Fit and happy’• sustained physical and mental health

-absence of disease-absence of suffering (e.g.pain, fear, exhaustion)

•feeling good (‘happy’)-comfort, companionship, security

Freedoms and Provisions (FAWC)

• Freedom from hunger and thirst: • access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and

vigour

• Freedom from discomfort: • a suitable environment: .e.g. shelter and a comfortable resting

place

• Freedom from pain, injury and disease: • prevention and/or rapid diagnosis and treatment

• Freedom from fear and stress: • ensure conditions which avoid mental suffering

• Freedom to express normal behaviour: • ensure sufficient space, proper facilities and social contact

Welfare Quality: criteria & subcriteriaWelfare criteria Welfare subcriteria

Good feedingAbsence of prolonged hunger

Absence of prolonged thirst

Good housing

Comfort around resting

Thermal comfort

Ease of movement

Good health

Absence of injuries

Absence of disease

Absence of pain induced by management procedures

Appropriate behaviour3

Expression of social behaviours

Expression of other behaviours

Good human-animal relationship

Absence of general fear

Risk/benefit assessment in animal welfare

Factors“Hazards”

Management, environment, phenotype?

“RISKS” improve impair

EFFECTS (adverse)

Thermal stress dehydration pain fear exhaustion disease

Hyper/hypothermia “skin pinch” ———— behaviour —----

INDICATORS OF WELFAREimprove impair

OVERALL WELFARE ?

Monitoring welfare state on farm

Outcome measures should– be quantifiable, repeatable & robust

- integrate consequences of past husbandry

- where possible “triangulate” different elements of physical and mental welfare

- be realistic

minimise disturbance to animals and farm routines

avoid obeisance to quasi-scientific objectivity

The Bristol Welfare Assurance Programme

• Bristol protocols for animal-based assessment of farm animal welfare

• Examples– Dairy cows– ‘Free range’ hens

www.vetschool.bristol.ac.uk/animalwelfare

Monitoring: dairy cows

• Nutrition – (digestion & metabolism)• Body condition, rumen

• Fertility - records

• Mastitis – records • Lameness – locomotion & lesion scores

• External appearance – hocks, knees

• Behaviour – resting time• Standing up/lying down in cubicles

Freedom to express normal behaviour: example of assessment, standing up and lying down

Monitoring welfare: farmer communicationFreedom to express normal behaviour:Example: Rising restriction during housing

Observation: A cow will normally rock in a forward lunge of 60 cm then raise the rear end first, moving a front foot forward, finally lifting the shoulders and head, all in a single fluid movement. Record if cows show severe rising restriction: e.g. performing behaviours such as rocking repeatedly, turning their heads sideways, dipping their heads as they stand, standing foot feet first, or hitting fittings during rising. Methodology: If possible observe 10 animals standing up. Try to observe cows that rise voluntarily; do not force the animals to stand. If more than one group is involved, take a representative sample of animals from each group. Farmer significance: Are cows having difficulty when rising or lying down? Cows are more likely to sustain injuries in areas such as the hips and ribs when they are too large for the cubicles. Severe restriction in the lying area may discourage cows from lying down. Reduced lying time is known to be a high risk for lameness, especially in heifers. Space restriction may be caused by factors such as cubicle design, yard design or stocking density.

Cattle (foot) lameness

• Sole injury– Haemorrhage/ulceration– White line disease

• Monitors– Locomotion score

• visual• weightbearing

– Lesions• at routine foot trimming

• Skin infections– Digital dermatitis– “foul”

• Monitors– Behaviour

• Locomotion (?)

• “Paddling in parlour”

– Lesions• “cold air observation”

The Seven Steps of HACCP

Generic SpecificIdentify hazards & outcomes Delphi review

Identify tangible hazards Identify tangible hazardsCharacterise proximate hazardsLameness and lesions protocols Score lameness & lesions

Assess risks Assess importance of hazards Score risks on farmIdentify CCPs Prioritise proximate risks Prioritise actionsEstablish critical limits Set practical targets Set practical targetsIdentify monitoring procedures Generic protocols Famer/vet agreed protocolsEstablish action procedures Famer/vet agreed protocols

Review outcomes: Plan B?Verify effectiveness Establish review programme Quarterly review

Modify LCP as necessary Modify on-farm LCP as necessary

Examples of proximate & tangible hazards

Proximate hazards“At foot”

Tangible hazards“On farm”

EnvironmentalProlonged standing on concreteFactors that cause claw traumaWet slurry underfootProlonged standing in slurry

Bad cubicles, time in collection yardRough, broken concreteSlurry remaining after scraping

ManagementalBreaches of biosecurityPoor claw shape in early lactationPoor foot care before calvingInadequate lameness detection/treatment

Open herd, contract foot trimmers?Overgrown claws, no foot trimmingDD before calving

AnimalRumen disordersHeifer phenotype/ condition

Poor transition diet, excess concentrate in dairy ration

Significant associations between Proximate Hazards and Foot Lesions

Environmental Managemental

Sole ulcer minus SOCC plus SOCC

Prolonged standing in slurryProlonged standing in slurry SOCC

White line disease minus SOCC plus SOCC

Prolonged standing on concreteProlonged standing on concrete SOCC

Digital dermatitis minus SOCC plus SOCC

Wet slurry underfootWet slurry underfoot

Poor D/T lamenessPoor D/T lamenessSOCC

Significant associations between proximate hazards, unsoundness and severe lameness

Proximate hazard UnsoundMinus SOCC Plus SOCC

Severely lameMinus SOCC Plus SOCC

Environmental Claw trauma hazardsWet slurry Wet slurry Wet slurry Wet slurry

Managemental SOCCPoor D/T lame

Biosecurity SOCCPoor D/T lame Poor D/T lamePoor D/T DD

Animal (none significant) (none significant)

Effects of early interventionDavid Tisdall, DCBT scholar

To quantify the benefits of early detection and treatment of lameness in dairy cows in order to facilitate farmers and vets in making informed decisions about case selection and treatment.

Early threshold treatment: – treatment of a new lameness case when a cow has been mobility score 2 for less than 2 weeks.

Conventional treatment: - treatment of any lameness case by or at the request of the farmer.

Initial findings: DCBT project

• A more RAPID recovery - 74% of “early threshold” treated lame cows mobility scored within 2 weeks of treatment had recovered (81% within 4 weeks).

• A more SUSTAINED recovery – the prevalence of mobility score 2 cows was 20-32% for 200 days after “early threshold” treatment (over 50% in the “conventional” treatment group).

Hens: animal-based measures

Attitude Activity Physical Welfare

Arousal Flight distance Novel object Noise

Feather pecking Aggression Use of range (Pariahs)

Feather loss Body condition Mortality Comb colour (Injuries)

Fl;

Attitude: arousal, noise, FD, NOVOB

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Aro

usal

0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28

1.3

1.5

1.8

2

2.3

2.5

2.8

3

3.3

3.5

3.8

Nois

e

0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

FD

mean

0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 282

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

NO

VO

B

0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28

Arousal and Mood:x = calm - aroused, y = confident - anxious, blue =

NOVOB, open = FD

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

Aggression, feather pecking & feather loss

Measure Aggression Feather peck Feather loss

Nest houseLitterRange

0.20*0.430.44

3.514.552.57

3.663.442.40

Age, 36w 52w 70w

0.18*0.36*0.86*

3.953.763.16

0.71*2.41*4.02*

Range

Correlations between attitude, activity and physical welfare

Arousal Aggression F-peck

Aggression F-peck F-loss (total) F-loss (severe) Mortality

0.35 0.42 0.58 0.68 0.29

n.s. 0.58 0.53 n.s.

n.s.

n.s. n.s. 0.26

Free range hens: conclusions

• Protocol robust– no significant between observer variation

• Welfare on most farms was satisfactory– 22 ‘calm’, 3 ‘anxious’

• ‘Attitude’ best assessed by Arousal and NOVOB• Arousal, aggression but not F-peck increased with time• ‘F-peck’ related to arousal but not aggression or F-loss!• ‘High anxiety’ flocks show reduced physical welfare

Effects of housing and husbandry: conclusions

• Flock size (3,000-16,000) size,arousal, NOVOB

• Stocking density (9.0-12.3 /sq.m) SD,arousal, feather loss

• Resources– feeders, drinkers, nest box all n.s.

• Perches and floor type (wood or wire v. plastic)– NP,Pl arousal, (aggression), feather loss, range use

Monitoring transport

Hazards Vehicle - design, “navigation”, thermal environment sudden motionHaulier – training. Loading skills

“RISKS” impair

EFFECTS (adverse)

Thermal stress dehydration pain fear exhaustion disease

Hyper/hypothermia “skin pinch” ———— behaviour —----

INDICATORS OF WELFARE impair

OVERALL WELFARE ?

Interpretation and integration of welfare assessments

• To achieve effective action by farmer– Prioritised, farm-specific solutions

• To meet standards of QA Scheme– Five freedoms/ four WQ criteria?

• To promote QA Scheme to consumers– pass/fail – no great appeal– ‘superior’ labels – e.g Freedom Foods

Actions for farm animal welfare

• On farm– animal health and welfare plan

– independent monitoring of welfare outcomes

– effective attention to risks to welfare

– review and reward

• Beyond the farm gate– increased consumer awareness

– promotion of added value, high welfare goods

– Build up of trust from evidence-based assurances

Welfare Quality:Progressive evaluation structure

Measu

res

Cri

teri

aOverall assessment

Pri

nci

ple

s~30

on-farm measures developed by

animal scientists

Advice to farmers

4main independent

dimensions describing welfare

Information to consumers

12Preference dimensions giving value

judgment

1Synthetic information attached to a product

WQ, Scoring and ranking 4 criteria

Each criterion Overall

Excellent >80 two>80, all >55

Enhanced 56-80 two>55, all>20

Acceptable 20-55 three>20, all >10

Not classified <20

The “Virtuous Bicycle”a delivery vehicle for improved farm animal welfare

Standards set byQuality Assurance

scheme

Retailer cycle Producer cycle

Proof of standards

Revise standards as

necessary

Self-assessmentof husbandry by

farmer

External monitor of

welfare

Implement action plan

Review and revise action plan

Establishcompliance

Increase awareness, trust and demand for high welfare

food

Promote standards

Demonstrateproof of

compliance

Quality control: The Producer Cycle

• Self-assessment (of resources)– Saves time, bureaucracy– Farmer knows most (if not best)

• Independent monitoring (of welfare outcomes) proven robust methods

can concentrate on major issues (need not always be exhaustive-saves time)

• Action plan– Compliance depends on perceived reward to farmer

• Reassessment– benchmarking provides incentives for improvement– Non-compliance results from failure to take effective action

The “Virtuous Bicycle”a delivery vehicle for improved farm animal welfare

Standards set byQuality Assurance

scheme

Retailer cycle Producer cycle

Proof of standards

Revise standards as

necessary

Self-assessmentof husbandry by

farmer

External monitor of

welfare

Implement action plan

Review and revise action plan

Establishcompliance

Increase awareness, trust and demand for high welfare

food

Promote standards

Demonstrateproof of

compliance

Increasing consumer demand:The 5%:95% rule?

• Promotion of QA for FAW as a positive element of added value (5%?)– e.g. Freedom Foods, Waitrose (U.K.)

• Promotion of QA for FAW as a defence against accusations of improper practice (95%?)– Free range eggs (no cruel cages)– Higher welfare = higher price contracts for UK dairy

farmers (Waitrose, Tesco - don’t be mean to the farmers)

Added Value from improved welfare:Deliverables from the virtuous

bicycle

• For the animals– improved productivity and welfare

• For the consumers– greater trust– greater satisfaction (“feel good”

factor)• For the farmers

– more pride– survival!