Pathological alterations of the tail tip are a severe problem for fattening cattle husbandry with respect to animal welfare and economic losses. We compared the frequencies of tail tip lesions and less severe skin damage in bulls on farms with slatted-floor pens (slat, n = 10), slatted floor pens with prophylactic tail docking (slat/dock, n = 9), and deep bedding pens (straw, n = 10). In addition, the subjects’ weight, their space allotment and the season of the year were determined to test whether they were related to the frequency of tail tip lesions and skin damage. Results are based on 8782 tail inspections in 764 pens. The frequency of the more severe tail tip lesions was highest in slat farms, less high in slat/dock farms, and lowest in straw farms. However, the incidence of the less severe skin damage was highest in slat farms, less high in straw farms, and lowest in slat/dock farms. The frequency of tail tip lesions increased with the weight of bulls in slat and slat/dock farms, but not in straw farms. In addition, in slat and slat/dock farms the incidence of tail tip lesions increased with a decreasing space allotment. The frequency of skin damage increased with increasing weight of bulls in each housing condition. The effect of weight on the number of tail tip lesions and skin damage was stronger in autumn, ie the period following the warm season, compared to spring. Our results suggest that a soft floor and an enlarged space allotment are the most suitable means of preventing tail tip lesions in fattening bulls. Prophylactic tail docking can reduce the occurrence of tail tip lesions only to a lesser degree and may impair the animals’ welfare.

Welfare concerns for intensive beef production have often been raised, but on-farm welfare assessment studies are rare. The aim of this study was to apply the Welfare Quality® (WQ) welfare assessment system for fattening cattle on beef bull farms to evaluate the state of welfare at the level of WQ measures and of aggregated scores, as well as overall classification. In addition, the purpose was to evaluate two ways of providing feedback information to the farmers with regard to possible welfare improvements on the farms. The study was conducted in Austria, Germany and Italy on a total of 63 beef bull farms with deep litter or cubicle-housing systems. Assessments were carried out 3 times (1 month and 7 months apart from the initial visit). In every country, farmers were assigned to two treatment groups (feedback from initial visit as written report, F, written feedback plus oral advice, FA) and a control group (C), which did not receive any feedback. At the criterion level, the highest average welfare scores were obtained from ‘Absence of prolonged hunger’ (94/100 points) followed by ‘Absence of pain induced by management procedures’ (88/100) and ‘Comfort around resting’ (77/100). Most welfare concerns related to the criteria ‘Absence of disease’ (40/100), ‘Expression of social behaviour’ (44/100) and ‘Positive emotional state’ (48/100), thus indicating room for improvements. Two-thirds of the farms achieved the ‘Enhanced’ level, about one-third was judged ‘Acceptable’ and only one farm ‘Excellent’. After 6 months of monitoring period, there was no significant welfare improvement in both the treatment groups as compared with the control group. Reasons for the lack of effect may mainly be seen in the short monitoring period and a lack of external incentives. In conclusion, the WQ assessment system revealed areas for improvement, but longer term studies and investigations on alternative ways of transferring outcomes from on-farm welfare assessments to farmers should be carried out in future.