BrightAnimal Project, Tartu 2010 The Virtuous Bicycle: A Delivery Vehicle for improved Animal Welfare John Webster University 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 & subcriteria Welfare criteriaWelfare subcriteria Good feeding Absence 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 behaviour 3 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 WELFARE improve 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

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 communication Freedom 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

Examples of proximate & tangible hazards Proximate hazards “At foot” Tangible hazards “On farm” Environmental Prolonged standing on concrete Factors that cause claw trauma Wet slurry underfoot Prolonged standing in slurry Bad cubicles, time in collection yard Rough, broken concrete Slurry remaining after scraping Managemental Breaches of biosecurity Poor claw shape in early lactation Poor foot care before calving Inadequate lameness detection/treatment Open herd, contract foot trimmers? Overgrown claws, no foot trimming DD before calving Animal Rumen disorders Heifer phenotype/ condition Poor transition diet, excess concentrate in dairy ration

Significant associations between Proximate Hazards and Foot Lesions EnvironmentalManagemental Sole ulcer minus SOCC plus SOCC Prolonged standing in slurry SOCC White line disease minus SOCC plus SOCC Prolonged standing on concrete SOCC Digital dermatitis minus SOCC plus SOCC Wet slurry underfoot Poor D/T lameness SOCC

Significant associations between proximate hazards, unsoundness and severe lameness Proximate hazardUnsound Minus SOCC Plus SOCC Severely lame Minus SOCC Plus SOCC EnvironmentalClaw trauma hazards Wet slurry Managemental SOCC Poor D/T lame Biosecurity SOCC Poor D/T lame Poor D/T DD Animal(none significant)

Effects of early intervention David 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: arousal, noise, FD, NOVOB

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

Aggression, feather pecking & feather loss

Correlations between attitude, activity and physical welfare

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 ( /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 motion Haulier – 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 Measures Criteria Overall assessment Principles ~30 on-farm measures developed by animal scientists Advice to farmers 4 main independent dimensions describing welfare Information to consumers 12 Preference dimensions giving value judgment 1 Synthetic information attached to a product

WQ, Scoring and ranking 4 criteria Each criterionOverall Excellent>80two>80, all >55 Enhanced56-80two>55, all>20 Acceptable20-55three>20, all >10 Not classified<20

The “Virtuous Bicycle” a delivery vehicle for improved farm animal welfare Standards set by Quality Assurance scheme Retailer cycleProducer cycle Proof of standards Revise standards as necessary Self-assessment of husbandry by farmer External monitor of welfare Implement action plan Review and revise action plan Establish compliance Increase awareness, trust and demand for high welfare food Promote standards Demonstrate proof 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 by Quality Assurance scheme Retailer cycleProducer cycle Proof of standards Revise standards as necessary Self-assessment of husbandry by farmer External monitor of welfare Implement action plan Review and revise action plan Establish compliance Increase awareness, trust and demand for high welfare food Promote standards Demonstrate proof 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!