This paper discusses the current state of development of on-farm cattle welfare assessment systems with special regard to the approach of Welfare Quality® that focuses on animal-related measures. The central criteria validity, reliability and feasibility are considered with regard to selected welfare measures. All welfare measures incorporated into the Welfare Quality® protocol possess face validity, but for most of them construct or criterion validity as, eg shown for lameness, have not been demonstrated. Exemplarily the cases of qualitative behaviour assessment and measurement of avoidance distance towards humans or social licking are discussed. Reliability issues have often been neglected in the past and require more thorough investigation and discussion in the future, especially with respect to appropriate test statistics and limits of acceptability. Means of improving reliability are the refinement of definitions or recording methods and training. Consistency of results over time requires further attention, especially if farms are to be certified, based on infrequent recordings. Considering feasibility, time constraints are the main concern for assessment systems that focus seriously on animal-based measures; currently they require several hours of on-farm recordings, eg about 6 h for a herd of 60 dairy cows. The Welfare Quality® project has promoted knowledge and discussion about validity, reliability and feasibility issues. Many welfare measures applied in the Welfare Quality® on-farm assessment approach can be regarded sufficiently valid, reliable and feasible. However, there are still a considerable number of challenges. They should be tackled while using the present assessment system in order to constantly improve it.

Merino ewes have been selected, over 18 generations, for calm (C) or nervous (N) temperament using using an arena test and an isolation box test. We investigated the relative contributions of genotype versus the post-partum behaviour of the dam on the temperament of the lambs using a cross-fostering procedure. Forty-eight multiparous calm and 52 nervous ewes were artificially inseminated with the semen of a sire of the same temperament. At birth, 32 lambs of a given temperament line were cross fostered to ewes from the other line (16 N × C, 16 C × N), 34 lambs were cross fostered to ewes from the same line (15 C × C, 19 N × N) and 30 lambs were left with their birth mother (15 C, 15 N), to control for the effect of cross fostering. The temperament of the progeny was assessed at two occasions, one week after birth by measuring locomotor activity during an open-field test and at weaning (16 weeks) by measuring locomotor activity during an arena test and agitation score measured during an isolation box test. There was a genotype effect but no maternal or fostering effect on the lamb temperament at one week. This may be because the maternal behaviour of the foster ewes did not differ considerably between the calm and nervous mothers during adoption or within the first week, post partum. Similarly, at weaning, only a genotype effect was found on the locomotor and agitation score. Therefore, it appears that temperament in Merino sheep is mainly determined by the genetic transmission of the trait across generations rather than behaviours learned from the mother.

The greatest challenge to the welfare of dairy cows occurs in the peripartum period. Given the perception that cow welfare is better in more natural environments, it was hypothesised that cows in a PASTURE-based production system (cubicle housing with grass silage pre-partum and rotational grazing with concentrate supplementation post-partum) would have improved peripartal welfare compared to cows in a HOUSED production system (cubicle housing with a total mixed ration [TMR], pre-partum and post-partum). Blood samples were analysed for acute phase proteins (APP), cortisol, white blood cell (WBC) differential and counts and other biochemical metabolites as non-specific indicators of sub-clinical ill-health and nutritional stress. Daily monitoring of rectal temperature (RT) and rumen fill (RF) scores were used to monitor ill-health and nutritional status. Reproductive health and welfare (calving difficulty, retained placenta, puerperal metritis, endometritis and oestrous cyclicity) was also recorded. No differences were found between treatments for APP, cortisol or WBC. Blood metabolite differences indicated that PASTURE cows were under greater nutritional stress than HOUSED cows. HOUSED cows showed an increase in RF score from day 0 to 10 post-partum and had a higher RF score than PASTURE cows. PASTURE cows had an overall lower RT and lower incidence of reproductive disorders. Results primarily reflect nutritional differences between treatments with PASTURE cows showing greater potential nutritional/metabolic stress in early lactation which has attendant implications for welfare. Nevertheless, this did not result in inferior health and, in accordance with our hypothesis, PASTURE cows’ reproductive health and welfare tended to be better than that of HOUSED cows.

One million pet rabbits are kept in The Netherlands, but there are no data available on their behaviour and welfare. This study seeks to assess the welfare of pet rabbits in Dutch households and is a first step in the development of a welfare assessment system. In an internet survey, housing systems, general up-keep and behaviour of pet rabbits were reported by their owners. The answers of 912 respondents were analysed with behavioural observations carried out on 66 rabbits in as many households. The rabbits were observed in their home cage and during three fear-related tests: a contact test, a handling test and an open-field test. The survey revealed that the average lifespan of the rabbits is approximately 4.2 years (the maximum potential lifespan is 13 years) and solitary housing appears to reduce lifespan. Close to half of respondents subjected their rabbit(s) to solitary housing and the majority housed them in relatively small cages (< 5,000 cm2). Health risks may arise from a failure to inoculate rabbits and via inappropriate diet. During the contact test, solitary-housed rabbits made more contacts with a human than group-housed rabbits and rabbits in a small housing system made more contacts than those in a large system. Observations in the home cage differed greatly compared with the natural time budget of rabbits, ie displaying increased stereotypic behaviour and decreased foraging and, in solitary-housed rabbits, a complete lack of social behaviour. Nearly 25% of rabbits displayed strong resistance to being picked up, indicating socialisation problems. During the open-field test, solitary-housed rabbits sat up more than social-housed rabbits suggesting increased fearfulness. These findings indicate that the conditions in which pet rabbits are kept often have a negative impact on their welfare, further underlining the need to study this in greater detail.

The aim of this article is to discuss the farming industry's development and use of welfare assessment schemes. A welfare assessment scheme developed by the Danish Cattle Federation (DCF) is used as a case study. The declared aim of the DCF scheme is to improve animal welfare, farm profitability and dialogue with the public. It is the purpose of this article to attempt to understand the dilemmas arising from this broad aim. We ask how DCF measures of welfare compare with alternative measures in which economic factors receive less emphasis. We bring in farmers’ views on whether the DCF's parameters of welfare track welfare effectively and are economically feasible. We also discuss how the views of the Scandinavian public on animal welfare influences the likelihood that the DCF scheme will improve dialogue with the public. The DCF definition of welfare is broad, but the measures it deploys are more limited and indeed very narrow compared with those in other welfare assessment schemes. This may not be a problem if the goal is to improve farm profitability. However, if the goal is to improve welfare, limited measures are problematic, and this may undermine attempts to improve dialogue with the public.