Various animal welfare assurance programs are being used to encourage or require the adoption of animal welfare standards in food production, and to assure the public that such standards are followed. The programs involve five main formats. Non-mandatory codes/guidelines are relatively easy to institute and appear well-supported by the industry, but provide only minimal assurance to the public unless measures are taken to ensure compliance. Programs based on government regulations and inter-governmental agreements are more challenging to institute; they are likely to generate less industry acceptance, but may provide more public confidence if enforcement is adequate. Product differentiation programs, and retailer policies requiring products to meet certain standards, serve a range of functions; these may generate public confidence but only for products covered. The various programs include several types of requirements. Requirements that are designed to maintain animal health and functioning have a widely accepted scientific basis, are often easy to incorporate into existing production systems, and often provide economic benefits, but do not fully address public concerns over animal welfare in some cultures. Requirements that address pain, distress and other affective states, and those that accommodate certain natural behaviour, have a growing but less traditional scientific rationale and appear likely to generate public confidence; however, they sometimes require significant changes to existing practices. Requirements for more natural surroundings (outdoor, free-range) seem to generate public confidence, but appear most likely to increase costs, least likely to be supported by the existing industry, and may involve trade-offs with productivity and with other aspects of animal welfare. The various formats and requirements provide a range of policy options for addressing animal welfare concerns in different cultural, industry and market contexts.

Three housing systems for fattening rabbits were compared using a stocking density of 15 rabbits m–2. The rabbits were housed in large pens (3.67 m2, 50 rabbits), small pens (0.66 m2, 10 rabbits) or in conventional standard cages (0.39 m2, 6 rabbits) from 31 to 72 days of age. Rabbits housed in each small pen or in each cage belonged to the same litter, and the 50 rabbits housed in each large pen were from six or seven litters. At the end of fattening, when rabbits were 72 days old, there was no significant difference in the weight of rabbits from the three different housing systems, even though the rabbits from small pens were slightly heavier in weight compared with rabbits from large pens. The best feed conversion ratio was found in rabbits from cages, but was only significantly different from rabbits housed in small pens. No significant differences were found in the main activities: nutrition, social behaviour, resting, and standing; however, the frequency of runs, hops and consecutive hops was significantly higher in rabbits from large pens compared with rabbits from the two other housing systems. These results confirm that the total surface area available for animals is the most important factor for such locomotory activities. This study did not reveal any significant difference in aggressive behaviours between rabbits from different litters housed in large pens and between rabbits from the same litter housed in small pens or cages.

Standard techniques for assessing plumage damage to hens from feather pecking typically require capture and handling. Handling of individual birds for plumage assessment is relatively easy in experimental studies; however, close inspection of individual birds in commercial flocks is less feasible because catching birds is difficult, may compromise bird welfare and affect egg production. The aim of this study was to assess a non-intrusive method for scoring plumage damage in a commercial free-ranging flock of laying hens. Plumage damage was scored within a 2 m distance of the birds, without capture or handling, using a 5-point scale for 5 body regions. The feather scores, recorded at a distance, by two independent scorers were compared (distance scores), and were then compared with feather scores recorded by a scorer who caught and handled the birds to examine the plumage damage closely (capture scores). There was a significant and positive correlation between the distance scores and the capture scores, and the mean correlation coefficient for all plumage score traits was 0.89. There was also a significant and positive correlation between scorers, and the mean correlation coefficient for all plumage score traits was 0.84. The standard deviation of the residual mean difference between scorers and between methods was less than 1 point for individual body regions and less than 1.5 points for the total body score. Large variation in feather damage within a flock and small sample size increased the standard error of the mean total feather score. When feather damage variation within flocks is low (ie little observed feather damage), the current industry standard of scoring a sample of 100 birds is likely to provide a reliable estimate of flock feather damage; however, when there is large variation within birds of a flock (ie considerable observed feather damage) ≥200 birds should be inspected to accurately monitor changes in plumage condition. The non-intrusive method of feather scoring described in this paper may be useful for commercial-scale feather pecking studies or for farmers who need to assess the plumage damage of their flocks reliably, quickly and with minimal disturbance or stress to the birds.

It has been argued that the welfare of gestating sows is higher in groups than singly in stalls, in part because group housing offers them more space and social contact. This study set out to ascertain how important access to a group pen was to dominant sows housed in stalls, using a measure of motivation. Subjects were trained to perform a panel-pressing task, then housed in a stall and permitted each day to work for a day's access to a fully slatted group pen containing two familiar, subordinate sows at a stocking density of 2.7m2 per pig. Social ranking was determined by observations at mixing and from feed competition tests. The fixed-ratio schedule was increased daily and the highest schedule reached (the reservation price) was used as a measure of motivational strength. To interpret this measure, it was compared with the highest schedule that subjects reached when working for access to the last 1/16th of their estimated ad libitum daily food intake after having consumed the first 15/16ths free. Sixteen subjects were tested, eight working for access to the group pen first and eight for access to the food first. Seven subjects yielded useable data: four reached a higher schedule working for food and three reached a higher schedule working for the group pen. Overall, subjects attached no more importance to a day's access to the group pen than to the last 1/16th of their estimated ad libitum food intake. It is likely that the subjects were close to satiation when working for food because consumption frequently fell substantially short of the ‘ad libitum‘ allowance. These results suggest that dominant, stall-housed sows are only weakly motivated to gain access to a fully slatted group pen, although motivation might be higher when deprived of access to the group pen for longer than one day, if tested at a different time of day or if the quality of the group space was improved; these three possibilities still need to be tested.

Common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus, are widely used by research laboratories and are commonly provided with food in bowls. These centralised, unchallenging sources of food result in high foraging success for low foraging effort. Foraging devices, which require more skill and effort for foraging success, may broaden the behavioural profiles of marmosets by including more elements of their natural ethogram, reflecting improved welfare. The behaviour of eight female common marmosets was examined as a function of four different food distributions: food centrally located in a stationary bowl; food in a bowl that changed location each day; food centrally located in a stationary bowl, in addition to hidden food in a clustered food source (cluster feeder) or hidden food in dispersed food sources (dispersed feeders). Both the cluster and dispersed feeder distributions increased foraging, and there was a trend for reduced scratching and grooming in the presence of the feeders compared with the bowl-only treatments. The cluster feeder increased the amount of time a marmoset spent in a large room annexed to the home rooms more than the dispersed feeders, and this effect was sustained throughout the day after the feeders had been removed. Both feeders increased activity and movements within all areas of the annexed room compared with the bowl-only treatments; therefore, both feeder types improved the welfare of the captive marmosets more than the provision of food bowls.

In most European countries broilers are currently caught manually: broilers are caught by the leg, inverted and carried by a catcher with 3–4 birds in each hand. This method of catching broiler chickens is a welfare concern as it causes severe stress to the birds. A possible alternative to manual catching may be mechanical catching. The aim of this study was to compare the level of stress and injuries of broilers caught manually or with a harvesting machine (CIEMME Super Apollo L harvester) under commercial conditions. The results indicated that there was no significant difference in plasma corticosterone concentrations and duration of tonic immobility, which suggested that mechanically caught broilers were no more stressed than those caught manually. At the end of the catching process, mechanically caught broilers had even lower plasma corticosterone concentrations and shorter durations of tonic immobility, indicating that at this moment these broilers were less stressed than the manually caught birds. The incidence of wing haemorrhages was also reduced for broilers caught mechanically; however, there was no significant difference in the incidence of haemorrhages in the breast or legs between the two catching methods. As injuries are associated with pain and stress, this parameter is important not only for the welfare of the birds but also for product quality and the subsequent financial return. Therefore, it can be concluded that the use of the mechanical harvesting machine, CIEMME Super Apollo L, appears to be a good alternative to manual catching. Nevertheless, some aspects of mechanical catching require further improvement.

Potential biochemical indicators of long-term undernutrition in cattle, which could be used objectively, reliably and routinely, were investigated by evaluating frequently analysed metabolites in cattle. In an initial study, a meta-regression of literature data for glucose, urea, non-esterifed fatty acids (NEFA) and β-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) against body condition score (BCS), body weight (BW) and its change (BWC) was conducted. The credible intervals of the gradients included zero for all regressions, showing that there were no significant relationships between any of the blood metabolites and BCS, BW or BWC across the 13 included studies. In a second study, fresh field samples from nine herds of adequately-nourished suckler cows and stored samples from two herds of suckler cows, which had experienced severe undernutrition, were analysed for serum albumin, total protein, urea, BHB, NEFA, creatinine, fructosamine and globulin. Positive regressions with BCS were obtained for albumin and creatinine, and a negative regression with fructosamine/albumin ratio. With the threshold for detecting undernutrition set at ≥ 10.75 μmol g–1, the fructosamine/albumin ratio gave sensitivity and specif city of 100%. Therefore, it is probably necessary to combine several blood measures to obtain a valid assessment of the nutritional state of ruminants, and we advise against the use of a single plasma metabolite concentration in assessing the nutritional state and welfare of individual cows.

In rodents, cage cleaning increases cardiovascular and behavioural activity for several hours, which are commonly interpreted as stress responses. In mice, post-cleaning activity also includes aggression, which can cause serious injuries. This study was part of a long-term investigation into the effects of cage cleaning frequency on rat behaviour and welfare. Here we aimed to ascertain whether post-cleaning activity is stress- or aggression-related, thereby leading to recurrent acute reductions in welfare, or simply a result of non-aversive stimulation. Male Wistar (n = 160) and Sprague–Dawley (n = 160) rats, kept in four animal units, had their cages cleaned twice per week, once per week or once per fortnight, and were kept on one of two types of bedding. Behaviours were recorded in detail before and after cage cleaning for 20 weeks, as was the aversion-related Harderian gland secretion, chromodacryorrhoea (‘red tears‘). Cage cleaning caused decreased resting and increased feeding, walking, bedding manipulation and sheltering for at least 30 min after the disturbance. Skirmishing also increased markedly for 15 min after cleaning, but decreased thereafter to below baseline levels. Unlike in mice, all skirmishing was non-injurious and play-like. The frequency of cage cleaning did not affect the magnitude of this skirmishing peak, but rats that had their cages cleaned more frequently settled more quickly after cleaning. Surprisingly, chromodacryorrhoea decreased after cage cleaning; this could mean that rats find soiled cages stressful or alternatively, like many disturbances, cage cleaning might provoke frequent, curtailed bouts of grooming, thereby removing the secretion. Rats also manipulated aspen bedding more than paper bedding. Overall, we found no evidence that cage cleaning caused rats any acute decrease in welfare — a finding consistent with additional data we have obtained on the lack of preference by rats for soiled over clean cages, and a lack of long-term, behavioural and physiological responses to being cleaned frequently or infrequently.

Following the 2012 European ban (1999/74/EC) of conventional battery cages, only furnished cages will be allowed for laying hens. However, even when furnished cages provide a pecking and scratching area most dustbathing occurs on the wire floor. This study aimed to investigate whether laying hens showed a preference for dustbathing on a covered wire floor rather than a conventional wire floor. Eight groups of 10 hens were housed in pairs of adjoining furnished cages. All hens were leg-ringed for individual identification. Each pair of cages consisted of one cage containing a wire floor covered with perforated Astroturf and a second cage containing a conventional wire floor, joined by a pophole through which hens had unrestricted access. Initial scan samples were taken to investigate the general behaviour of the hens on each floor type. Dustbathing was observed more frequently on Astroturf and no other behaviours were affected by the floor type. Scans were subsequently taken at 5 min intervals between 1130h and 1600h for 10 days, identifying the number of hens, and which individual hens, were dustbathing on each floor type. Data were analysed on a per cage basis, using the binomial sign test. A strong preference was found for dustbathing on Astroturf flooring that was apparent in all cages. Furthermore, the distribution of hens indicated this was not attributable to any overall preference for either floor type but was specific to periods when hens were dustbathing. This demonstrates that there is the potential to include Astroturf in the design of furnished cages, as a dustbathing substrate, in order to improve the welfare of laying hens.

Behavioural problems directly affect the welfare of dogs and cats. The existence of a behavioural problem is a factor in the euthanasia and relinquishment of animals to shelters — a significant proportion of companion animals that are abandoned and euthanased are attributed to behavioural problems. Some behavioural problems are linked to stress and anxiety. In order to prevent and treat behavioural problems it is essential to have good epidemiological data. Most studies regarding the prevalence of behavioural problems use data from veterinary behaviourists. To our knowledge, no studies regarding the prevalence of small animal behavioural problems have been conducted in Spain. Therefore, a study was designed to estimate different aspects of canine and feline behavioural problems in Spain from the perspective of the veterinary practitioner. Of 433 valid questionnaires returned during a six month period, 46.2% of veterinarians referred cases to veterinary behaviourists and 12.3% to dog trainers; 34.7% never referred cases. Destructiveness, aggression and house soiling were the most frequent complaints regarding behavioural problems in dogs, whereas house soiling was clearly considered the main behavioural complaint in cats, followed by furniture scratching and excessive vocalisation. Behavioural modification was considered the most effective treatment for dogs, followed by drugs and castration. In cats the most effective treatment was castration, followed by drug therapy and behavioural modification.