A preliminary investigation was undertaken to evaluate a series of animal-based welfare measures for the assessment of finishing pigs in units that were members of the RSPCA Freedom Food farm assurance scheme. A total of 20 finishing pig units were visited in the summer of 2002 and 14 of these were revisited in late winter 2003. Behavioural observations of the pigs, both undisturbed and disturbed by the observer, were made in 128 pens containing 9,444 pigs and the physical condition of 650 individuals was examined. A range of event behaviours were observed including social interactions. Play behaviour was observed in 66% of pens during ten-minute observation periods. The prevalence of physical conditions varied greatly between units. The most prevalent skin lesion was on the flank (40.8%) however, only 4.5% of pigs had both fresh and healed flank lesions suggestive of persistent fighting.

This paper describes an approach to assessing the overall welfare of cows on dairy farms. Veterinary and behaviour experts were shown results for ten selected welfare parameters for 25 pairs of dairy farms paired for farm assurance status but with similar geographical location and husbandry system. From this information alone they were asked to state which farms had better welfare. Overall, there were no significant differences between the conclusions of veterinary and behaviour experts. There was a significant relationship between the proportion of experts rating a farm as poorer and the measured difference in the number of cows with lameness or rising restrictions between the paired farms. There were no significant relationships between the expert decisions and differences in milk yield, flight distance, swollen hocks, mastitis incidence, dystocia level, conception rates, prevalence of thin cows and proportion of cows with dirty udders. Clearly, experts rate lameness and discomfort as highly important indices of poor welfare in dairy cows.

The assessment of animal welfare is a complex subject which gives rise to divergent views and debate. It is generally accepted that scientific welfare assessment must involve multidisciplinary approaches, and that to interpret results unambiguously, a high level of control over the experimental conditions is required. Such considerations would appear to militate against attempts to measure welfare in a practical farm situation, where systems are relatively uncontrolled and contain many confounding factors to complicate interpretation. In consequence, fundamental welfare scientists sometimes consider that on-farm welfare assessment is of limited value. However, adherents emphasise that on-farm application is the final objective of all livestock welfare science endeavours, and also gives unique options for large-scale population studies and access to a diversity of environmental circumstances. On-farm welfare assessment not only provides an opportunity for extending knowledge on animal requirements, but is also a necessary tool in the growing requirement to assess and certify animal welfare status for legislators and consumers. However, the economic and time limitations, combined with difficulty of close access to individual animals, restrict the range and detail of possible measures. It is also essential that a consensus exists that the measurements taken are objective and meaningful to stakeholders. These constraints have tended to drive the techniques used in Farm Assurance schemes towards assessment of resource provision and management records. However, animal-based measures of health and behaviour are now being more widely explored, and the validation and standardisation of simple integrative measures for such approaches is an important future development.

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.

Most farm assurance schemes in the UK at least, in part, aim to provide assurances to consumers and retailers of compliance with welfare standards. Inclusion of welfare outcome assessments into the relevant inspection procedures provides a mechanism to improve animal welfare within assurance schemes. In this study, taking laying hens as an example, we describe a process for dealing with the practical difficulties in achieving this in two UK schemes; Freedom Food and Soil Association. The key challenges arise from selecting the most appropriate measures, defining sampling strategies that are feasible and robust, ensuring assessors can deliver a consistent evaluation and establishing a mechanism to achieve positive change. After a consultation exercise and pilot study, five measures (feather cover, cleanliness, aggressive behaviour, management of sick or injured birds, and beak trimming) were included within the inspection procedures of the schemes. The chosen sampling strategy of assessing 50 birds without handling provided reasonable certainty at a scheme level but less certainty at an individual farm level. Despite the inherent limitations within a time and cost sensitive certification assessment, the approach adopted does provide a foundation for welfare improvement by being able to highlight areas of concern requiring attention, enabling schemes to promote the use of outcome scoring as a management tool, promoting the dissemination of relevant technical information in a timely manner and increasing the scrutiny of standards important for the welfare of the birds.

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.

This paper describes a case example where initiatives from private assurance schemes, scientists, charities, government and egg companies have improved the welfare of UK cage-free laying hens. The RSPCA and Soil Association farm assurance schemes introduced formal welfare outcome assessment into their annual audits of laying-hen farms in 2011. Feather loss was assessed on 50 birds from each flock on a three-point scale for two body regions: Head and Neck (HN) and Back and Vent (BV). In support of the observations, assessors were trained in feedback techniques designed to encourage change in farmer behaviour to improve welfare. In addition, during Year 2 farmers were asked about changes they had made, and intended to make on their farms. During 2011-2013 there were also wider industry initiatives to improve feather cover. Data were analysed from 830 and 743 farms in Year 1 and Year 2, respectively. From Year 1 to Year 2 there was a significant reduction in the prevalence of feather loss from 31.8% (9.6% severe) to 20.8% (6% severe) for the HN region, and from 33.1% (12.6% severe) to 22.7% (8.3% severe) for BV. Fifty-nine percent of 662 farmers reported they had made changes on their farms during Year 1 to improve bird welfare. For such a substantial industry change, attributing causation to specific initiatives is difficult; however, this is the first study to demonstrate the value to animal welfare of certification schemes monitoring the effectiveness of their own and other industry-led interventions to guide future policy.

Farm assurance schemes are voluntary certification schemes that aim to provide consumers and retailers with assurances on animal welfare, environment and food safety standards. Whilst current schemes have often been focused on resource-based standards there has been interest in schemes including more outcome-based assessments. In order to maximise the likely impact of including these outcome assessments it is important to consider the economic, education, encouragement and enforcement drivers that may improve welfare. Using dairy cattle lameness as an example, the potential mechanisms to use these drivers within farm assurance schemes is reviewed. Future development of schemes should focus on encouraging the active participation of farmers in monitoring and managing outcome measures. Economic and educational approaches have a role in supporting change. Where possible, economic drivers need to be working in the same direction as welfare (ie provide win-win situations). Educational initiatives, such as providing generic technical information and farm-specific advisory support, need to be available when requested. Finally, enforcement tools, based on existing noncompliance procedures, may be needed to stimulate activity if other initiatives prove ineffective on individual farms.

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.