The effect of Farm Assurance (FA) assessors’ attitude to farm animal welfare on the inter-observer reliability of some welfare outcome measures achieved following training was investigated as part of a larger project examining the feasibility and benefits of the incorporation of some on-farm welfare outcome assessments into UK Pig Farm Assurance Schemes. A total of thirty-one FA assessors were trained in three training sessions to assess the following welfare outcome measures: body lesions, tail lesions, severe tail lesions, lameness and pigs requiring hospitalisation. Assessment of photographs, live observations of individual pigs and pens of pigs were used to generate inter-observer reliability data. A previously validated farm animal welfare questionnaire was used to assess the FA assessors’ attitudes to farm animal welfare. Principal Component Analysis of FA assessor scores for this questionnaire resulted in two major components, with component 1 termed ‘pigs have mental welfare’ and component 2 termed ‘people-centric, pigs as profit’. FA assessors demonstrated a range in attitudes to farm animal welfare and, when assessing the same pigs, recorded a range in prevalence of welfare outcome measures and degree of agreement with a gold standard following training. There were only seven out of a possible 98 significant correlations between the FA assessor scores for components 1 and 2 and their recorded prevalence of welfare measures and levels of agreement with a gold standard. In particular, FA assessors’ scores for component 1 were significantly positively correlated with the recorded prevalence for pigs requiring hospitalisation in two of the three training sessions although there was no effect on the agreement with a gold standard for this measure. These results indicate that training in welfare outcomes, defined by a standard protocol, is relatively unconfounded by observer attitudes to farm animal welfare. To obtain better levels of agreement between assessors, and therefore more reliable data, it is recommended that FA schemes concentrate their resources on providing good quality training in a well-defined protocol and reliability testing and that they do not need to attempt to account for the attitudes of the FA assessors to farm animal welfare.

The welfare of zoo animals depends on a combination of physical, social, dietary and other ecological characteristics of the captive setting. We analysed the influence of the transfer of an adult couple of hamadryas baboons (Papio hamadryas) from a small and non-enriched cage that was closed to the public to a larger and enriched exhibit at the visitation area of the Sapucaia do Sul Zoological Park, RS, Brazil. A total of 350 h divided into four stages were spent observing the baboons: (i) in the non-enriched enclosure before the transfer; (ii) soon after the transfer to the enriched enclosure; (iii) six months; and (iv) 12 months after the transfer. The occurrence of stereotypic, social aggressive and social affiliative behaviours was recorded by ‘all occurrences’ sampling. The female showed a decrease in frequency of a stereotypic behaviour (spinning) and an increase in grooming in the enriched enclosure. The male showed a decrease in the frequency of certain stress-related or stereotypic behaviours after transfer, but other stress-related behaviours either increased or remained constant. The male behaviour of throwing faeces was affected by the presence of visitors. We suggest that the well-being of the female was more positively influenced by the new enclosure than that of the male, although gender differences may reflect the normal behavioural repertoire of this sexually dimorphic species.

All systems of scoring animal units (groups, farms, slaughter plants, etc) according to the level of the animals’ welfare are based inevitably on normative decisions. Similarly, all methods of labelling, in terms of acceptability, are based on choices reflecting ethical values. The evaluative dimension of scoring and labelling does not mean that we should reject them, but it does mean that we need to make the normative and ethical background explicit. The Welfare Quality® scoring system is used as a case study in order to highlight the role of underlying value-based decisions. In this scoring system, which was designed in accordance with assessments and judgments from experts in animal and social sciences and stakeholders, we identify value-based decisions at the following five levels. First, there are several definitions of animal welfare (eg hedonist, perfectionist, and preferentialist), and any welfare scoring system will reflect a focus upon one or other definition. In Welfare Quality®, 12 welfare criteria were defined, and the entire list of criteria was intended to cover relevant definitions of animal welfare. Second, two dimensions can structure an overall evaluation of animal welfare: the individual animals and the welfare criteria (here 12). Hence, a choice needs to be made between the aggregation of information at the individual level (which results in a proportion of animals from the unit in a good vs bad state) and the aggregation at criterion level (which results in a proportion of criteria to which the unit complies vs does not comply). Welfare Quality® opted for the second alternative to facilitate the provision of advice to farmers on solving the welfare problems associated with their farms. Third, one has to decide whether the overall welfare assessment should reflect the average state of the animals or give priority to worse-off animals. In the Welfare Quality® scoring system the worse-off animals are treated as much more important than the others, but all welfare problems, major or minor, count. Fourth, one has to decide whether good scores on certain criteria can compensate for bad scores on others. In the opinion of most people, welfare scores do not compensate each other. This was taken into account in the Welfare Quality® scoring system by using a specific operator instead of mere weighted sums. Finally, a scoring system may either reflect societal demands for high levels of welfare or be based on what can be achieved in practice — in other words, an absolute assessment or a relative one may be proposed. Welfare Quality® adopted an intermediate strategy: absolute limits between welfare categories (Not classified, Acceptable, Enhanced, or Excellent level of welfare) were set, but the rules governing the assignment of an animal unit to a category take into account what had been observed on European farms. The scientists behind Welfare Quality® are keen to make the value-based choices underlying assessments of animal welfare transparent. This is essential to allow stakeholder groups to understand the extent to which their views are acknowledged and acted upon.

Farm animal welfare is a societal concern, and the need exists for scientific protocols to assess welfare. This paper describes the development of a protocol to assess the welfare of sheep (Ovis aries) and its application in 36 farms in Norway. There were two parts to the protocol; the animal- and resource-based measurements obtained during farm visits, and the analysis of production data. Data collection took place during visits to 36 farms in the lambing season (April-May) in 2007 (n = 11) and 2008 (n = 25). A fear test was conducted, and ewes were scored on a scale from 0 to 3. Forty-one percent of the ewes tested had a fear score of 3, indicating the lowest level of fear. Mean (± SD) fear score across farms were 1.9 (± 0.5). Higher fearfulness was found to be associated with lower ewe body condition scores (BCS). Mean (± SD) BCS across farms was 2.6 (± 0.6). A relatively large proportion of the ewes had a BCS of 2 (41%), which may be associated with an increased risk of nutritional stress, disease and low productivity. Eight farms had more than 5% (range 5.4-24.4%) of lamb carcases categorised in the lowest conformation class, which may be an indication of a welfare problem. This study is the first step in the development and validation of a welfare assessment protocol for sheep, and further research is needed to assess the overall reliability of the protocol.

People affect animals through four broad types of activity: (1) people keep companion, farm, laboratory and captive wild animals, often while using them for some purpose; (2) people cause deliberate harm to animals through activities such as slaughter, pest control, hunting, and toxicology testing; (3) people cause direct but unintended harm to animals through crop production, transportation, night-time lighting, and many other human activities; and (4) people harm animals indirectly by disturbing ecological systems and the processes of nature, for example by destroying habitat, introducing foreign species, and causing pollution and climate change. Each type of activity affects vast numbers of animals and raises different scientific and ethical challenges. In Type 1 activities (keeping animals), the challenge is to improve care, sometimes by finding options that benefit both people and animals. In Type 2 activities (deliberate harm), the challenge is to avoid compounding intentional harms with additional, unintended harms, such as animal suffering. For Type 3 and 4 activities, the challenges are to understand the unintended and indirect harms that people cause, to motivate people to recognise and avoid such harms, and to find less harmful ways of achieving human goals. With Type 4 activities, this may involve recognising commonalities between animal welfare, conservation and human well-being. Animal welfare science and animal ethics philosophy have traditionally focused on Type 1 and 2 activities. These fields need to include Type 3 and 4 activities, especially as they increase with human population growth.

In the event of a notifiable disease outbreak, poultry may need to be culled in situ. This should be performed swiftly and humanely to prevent further spread of the pathogen while preserving the welfare of the animals prior to death. Here, we examined the aversion of broiler chicks (Gallus domesticus) to three lethal gas mixtures at various concentrations to determine the least aversive mix that could be used in whole-house gassing. For 1 h, individual chicks (n = 36) were allowed to place their heads inside three feeding and drinking stations (FDS) in order to access food and water. Each FDS was filled with a different gas mixture, and birds could access each FDS as much as they liked. Twelve chicks each were tested at low (50% carbon dioxide [CO2] in air, 70% argon [Ar] in CO2, 70% nitrogen [N2] in CO2), medium (55% CO2 in air, 80% Ar in CO2, 80% N2 in CO2) or high (60% CO2 in air, 90% Ar in CO2, 90% N2 in CO2) concentrations of gas mixtures. Aversion was assessed based on the time birds spent with head in each FDS (with more time indicating less aversive), and the frequency of head shakes relative to time spent with head in the FDS (with a lower proportion indicating less aversive). Data were analysed by ANOVA. On average, birds spent < 3 min with their head in any FDS. Mixtures containing 90% Ar or N2 in CO2 and 80% argon in CO2 were least aversive and mixtures containing 70% N2 in CO2 and 60% CO2 in air were most aversive, based on time spent with head in. Head shakes s−1 were more frequent with low concentration gas mixtures compared to high concentrations, and with all CO2 in air mixtures, which suggests that the intensity of head shaking is related to the concentrations of CO2. From these results, one concentration of each of the three gas mixtures (90% N2 in CO2, 80% Ar in CO2, and 50% CO2 in air) were chosen for assessment on a further 12 birds and the results showed that both inert gas mixtures were less aversive than 50% CO2 in air based on time spent with head in. Frequency of head shakes s−1 did not differ between the three mixtures. Birds found all gases aversive, however it is concluded that inert gas in CO2 mixtures were least aversive compared to CO2 in air and these gases also caused less signs of respiratory discomfort.

Policy-making concerned with animals often includes human interests, such as economy, trade, environmental protection, disease control, species conservation etc. When it comes to the interests of the animals, such policy-making often makes use of the results of animal welfare science to provide assessments of ethically relevant concerns for animals. This has provided a scientific rigour that has helped to overcome controversies and allowed debates to move forward according to generally agreed methodologies. However, this focus can lead to policies leaving out other important issues relevant to animals. This can be considered as a problem of what is included in welfare science, or of what is included in policy. This suggests two possible solutions: expanding animal welfare science to address all ethical concerns about animals’ interests or widening the perspective considered in policymaking to encompass other important ethical concerns about animals than welfare. The latter appears the better option. This requires both a ‘philosophy of animal welfare science’, a ‘philosophy of decision-making about animals’, and greater transparency about what is included or excluded from both animal welfare science and the politics of animal policy.

Farm animal welfare has become an important issue for the European public, especially in the last two decades when a number of crises (eg Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and Avian Influenza) have affected farm animal populations. Public concern about this issue led the European Union to fund the Welfare Quality® project. This project aimed to develop a protocol for assessing animal welfare on farms and at slaughter plants, to identify the main animal welfare problems, and to address possible welfare improvement strategies. In fulfilling these aims, the Welfare Quality® project incorporated inputs from both science and society. This was crucial, as the public perception of what constitutes ‘animal welfare’ sometimes differs from animal science-based definitions. Furthermore, these differences are often interwoven with broader variations in ethical- and value-based understandings about human/non-human animal relationships. This paper presents the steps that we adopted to establish a dialogue between science and society during the construction of the Welfare Quality® assessment protocols. This dialogue involved numerous interactions between animal scientists, social scientists and members of the public. These interactions took several forms, including: meetings, conferences, workshops, websites, newsletters, interviews, focus groups, and citizen and farmers juries. Here, we address four key moments within this dialogue: the development of the initial list of twelve welfare criteria; the consumer focus groups; the development of the Welfare Quality® scoring system; and the citizen juries. In particular, we focus on the results of the focus groups and citizen juries. The focus groups were conducted in France, Italy, Sweden, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Hungary and the citizen juries were carried out in Italy, the United Kingdom, and Norway. Drawing on this research, we highlight the similarities and differences between societal understandings of farm animal welfare and the views of scientific experts. Furthermore, and crucially, we outline how the animal scientists took account of societal opinion when developing their farm animal welfare assessment tools.

We investigated the temporal associations between the severity of foot lesions caused by footrot (FR) and the severity of lameness in sheep. Sixty sheep from one farm were monitored for five weeks. The locomotion of each sheep was scored once each week using a validated numerical rating scale of 0-6. All feet were then examined, FR was the only foot lesion observed; the severity of FR lesions was recorded on a scale from 0 to 4. Sheep had a locomotion score > 0 on 144/298 observations. FR lesions were present on at least one foot on 83% of observations of lame sheep but also present on 27% of observations where sheep were not lame; 95% of these sheep with a lesion but not lame had FR score 1. The results from a linear mixed model with locomotion score as the outcome were that the mean (95% CI) locomotion score of 0.28 (0.02, 0.53) in sheep with no lesions increased by 0.35 (0.05, 0.65) in sheep with FR score 1 or 2 and by 1.55 (1.13, 1.96) in sheep with FR score > 2 at the time of the observation; indicating that as the severity of the lesion increased, the severity of lameness increased. One week before an FR score > 2 was clinically apparent, sheep had a locomotion score 0.81 (0.37, 1.24) higher than sheep that did not have an FR score > 2 in the subsequent week. One week after treatment with intramuscular antibacterials the locomotion score of lame sheep reduced by 1.00 (0.50, 1.49). Our results indicate a positive association between severity of FR lesions and locomotion score and indicate that some non-lame and mildly lame sheep have footrot lesions. Treatment of even those mildly lame will facilitate healing and probably reduce the spread of infection to other sheep in the same group.

This study examined the sources of glare and range in luminance levels in eleven UK cattle abattoirs, and the effect of reflected glare from a footbath on balking behaviour of cows in a milking parlour. At the abattoirs, the mean luminance levels decreased from 240,000 cd m−2 outdoors to 100 cd m−2 in the stunning pen. In five of the abattoirs, the luminance of the glare from wet floor surfaces was three times higher than the luminance from the surrounding darker areas, and the luminance of the glare from shiny metal surfaces was ten times higher than the luminance from the adjacent darker areas. In the glare study, frequency of balking increased significantly from 10 to 23% when reflected glare increased from 0 (no lightbulb) to 873 cd m−2 (100 W bulb), but significantly fewer animals balked during the afternoon milking than at the morning milking times.

Buprenorphine is a widely used analgesic for laboratory rodents. Administration of the drug in a desirable food item for voluntary ingestion is an attractive way to administer the drug non-invasively. However, it is vital that the animals ingest the buprenorphine-food-item mix as desired. The present study investigated how readily female and male mice (Mus musculus) of two different strains consumed buprenorphine mixed in a commercially available nut paste (Nutella®), and whether variation between genders and strains would affect the subsequent serum concentrations of buprenorphine. Buprenorphine at different concentrations mixed in Nutella® was given to male and female C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice in a complete cross-over study. Pure Nutella® or buprenorphine (1.0-3.0 mg kg−1 bodyweight [bw]) mixed in 10 g kg−1 bw Nutella® were given to the mice at 1500h. The mice were video recorded until the next morning, when blood was collected by submandibular venipuncture. The concentration of buprenorphine in the Nutella® mix did not affect the duration of ingestion in any of the groups. However, female mice consumed the Nutella® significantly faster than males. Repeated exposure significantly reduced the start time of voluntary ingestion, but not the duration of eating the mixture. These differences did not however affect the serum concentration of buprenorphine measured 17 h post administration.

The aim of this study was to investigate how difficult it was to halter and separate a horse (Equus caballus) from a group for riding or training purposes and to describe how human-horse interactions could affect this common procedure. A total of 20 different horse groups, with a minimum of five horses in each, were studied on 14 farms in Norway, from June to October 2007. On each farm, information about the facilities, the horse and the handler was recorded. In each group, the horse owner or keeper (handler) was asked to enter the group, approach his/her horse, halter it and lead it out through the gate, then keep the horse standing out of sight from other horses for two minutes. The entire procedure was video recorded and the behaviour of the target horse, handler and other horses was subsequently scored. Only one of the 100 horses moved away from the handler when approached. Ninety-six percent of the target horses followed their handler without showing any resistance. In 75% of the tests, the other horses did not interact with the target horse and/or handler. At the gate, 26% of the handlers did not turn the target horse around before closing the gate, thereby placing themselves in a vulnerable position, with their body in very close proximity to the horse's hind legs. In conclusion, separating a horse from its group can be considered relatively safe and unproblematic, provided good management practices and trained handlers.

Close collaboration between science and industry is essential for the formulation of evidence-based welfare policies. However, there is a need to recognise and manage potential challenges that may arise during collaborative projects. An applied animal welfare science project evaluating the inclusion of welfare outcome measures into UK pig farm assurance, with a view to industry implementation, is used as a case example to illustrate potential challenges. This project encountered difficulties associated with differences in understanding and expectations, discussion of controversial welfare issues, challenges to personal values and conflict between academic and industry outcomes. With the assistance of an independent review conducted during the project, potential solutions were developed and successfully implemented. It is proposed that similar science-industry partnerships should allow sufficient time for dialogue, distinguish between experimental and applied science, ensure sufficient involvement from interested parties and use facilitation techniques to develop consensus.

In this study, pig producers were identified whose practices exceeded the basic legal requirements and government recommendations for pig welfare. This novel approach was part of a larger project investigating the feasibility and benefits of the inclusion of some animal-based welfare outcome measures into the main UK pig-farm assurance schemes. A set of pig-keeping-system descriptor scores were devised through consultation with stakeholders, whereby a finishing pig farm would be classified on a scale of 1 (legislation compliance) to 5 (highest level of welfare provision) for six different elements of pig husbandry which can influence pig welfare (environmental enrichment, foraging behaviour, thermal comfort, physical comfort, tail docking and floor space provision). Animal-based observations were used to assess the welfare of a sample of between 67 and 220 pigs on 15 UK finishing pig farms, which were also classified according to the system descriptors. Scores achieved when assessing the environmental enrichment and physical comfort elements were significantly positively correlated with a qualitative assessment of good mood of the pigs and a measure of their oral manipulation and significantly negatively correlated with the prevalence of tail lesions and swollen bursae. However, there were wide variations in the prevalence of animal-based welfare outcome measures between farms with the same system descriptor score. These system descriptors are therefore not sufficient to be used alone to provide assurances on welfare. It is suggested that a combined approach of system descriptors and animal-based welfare outcome measures may be useful for providing assurances on higher levels of welfare.

Severity classification systems (ie pain scales, categories of invasiveness, degrees of severity etc) are used to classify the adverse effects experienced by animals used for scientific purposes. Currently, eleven countries use severity classification systems. These systems have developed in various ways, depending on each country's process for overseeing the use of animals in science, as well as the particular aspects emphasised by those individuals who have championed their implementation. Severity classification serves four main purposes: as a tool to assist animal ethics committees in ethical review; education of animal users about concepts for humane animal experimentation; provision of data to inform the public about scientific animal use; and provision of data to inform national policies. At a time when the newly accepted European Union Directive will make the reporting of severity data mandatory, we review the characteristics of international severity classification systems and how they have evolved; analyse the effectiveness of some systems; and identify emerging challenges for severity classification.

The preference of Syrian hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) for different in-cage shelters was tested. First, 15 males and 15 females were made to choose between a cage with a shelter and one without. Different shelters were tested consecutively: short (10-cm) or medium (15-cm) pipes made of black acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), 7.6 cm in diameter and open at both ends; and short or medium boxes made of black acrylic panels and open at only one end. The strongest use of the shelter cage for nesting (about 75% of days) was in the case of the medium, open pipe, for both males and females. The strongest use of the shelter itself for nesting was also in the case of the medium open pipe (52% of days). A second experiment gave a choice between pairs of shelters (of seven different types) to 10 males and 10 females. Both sexes nested significantly more in a medium pipe closed at one end than under a wheel, and tended to nest more in that medium, semi-closed pipe than in a medium, open pipe. Also, females tended to nest more in the medium, semi-closed pipe than under an aluminium cover. Other pairings did not yield significant differences. Direct use of the shelters for nesting was rather low, except for the medium, semi-closed pipe (about 50% of days). Semi-closed ABS pipes are inexpensive, easy to clean, and do not interfere with running wheels, and they could be recommended as environmental enrichment for hamsters.