Free-ranging native Dartmoor and Exmoor ponies have not only held strong cultural and environmental significance for thousands of years within their respective national parks, but their environmental benefits and naturally selected characteristics have also been acknowledged and harnessed for conservation grazing and rewilding programmes. Despite a wealth of literature regarding the welfare of sports, leisure and working horses, there is little information concerning the welfare of free-ranging and extensively grazing ponies. The present study compared the welfare of native Exmoor and Dartmoor ponies grazing on the moors in their respective national parks (n = 47) with those that have been translocated to other areas of the UK for use in conservation grazing and rewilding programmes (n = 29) using a specifically designed observational welfare assessment protocol for free-ranging ponies. The results showed a significant difference between common land and conservation grazing ponies in the scores for Body Condition Score, Water Quality and Availability, Environmental Hazards, Human Disturbance, Skin and Coat Condition and the Human Approach Test. Despite no evidence of significant welfare compromise being identified, this study emphasises the importance of year-round monitoring of welfare and the feasibility of the observational welfare protocol to be used by pony keepers and grazing managers in the future.

Primates are important species for biomedical research and ensuring their good welfare is critical for research translatability and ethical responsibility. Systematic animal welfare assessments can support continuous programme improvements and build institutional awareness of areas requiring more attention. A multi-facility, collaborative project aimed to develop and implement a novel primate welfare assessment tool (PWAT) for use with research macaques. PWAT development involved: establishing an internal focus group of primate subject matter experts, identifying animal welfare categories and descriptors based on literature review, developing a preliminary tool, beta-testing the tool to ensure practicality and final consensus on descriptors, finalising the tool in a database with semi-automated data analysis, and delivering the tool to 13 sites across four countries. The tool uses input- and outcome-based measures from six categories: physical, behavioural, training, environmental, procedural, and culture of care. The final tool has 133 descriptors weighted based upon welfare impact, and is split into three forms for ease of use (room level, site level, and personnel interviews). The PWAT was trialled across facilities in March and September 2022 for benchmarking current macaque behavioural management programmes. The tool successfully distinguished strengths and challenges at the facility level and across sites. Following this benchmarking, the tool is being applied semi-annually to assess and monitor progress in behavioural management programmes. The development process of the PWAT demonstrates that evidence-based assessment tools can be developed through collaboration and consensus building, which are important for uptake and applicability, and ultimately for promoting global improvements in research macaque welfare.

It has been suggested that grazing horses could be used as a credible tool for landscape conservation which would, at the same time, improve horse welfare as opposed to conventional housing. A study was conducted between May 2014 and April 2015 on 12 one year old Gotland ponies managed extensively without supplementary feed. Monthly animal welfare assessments (n = 13) revealed welfare issues in most of the horses, i.e. low body condition score (BCS < 3/5), recurring poor skin condition in 11/12 horses and ocular discharge in 7/12 horses. At the end of the study, compared to the beginning, chafing and poor skin condition increased while coat condition improved. A correlation was found between a negative reaction (score > 0) in the human approach test and BCS < 3 and ocular discharge. Avoidance Distance test values were correlated with faecal parasite counts (> 350 eggs per gram [EPG]). These results indicate that the horses had acceptable welfare during late spring/summer (May–September) and that some horses required additional feed during winter. The animal welfare protocol proved to be an efficient tool for monitoring welfare. The results showed that factors important for extensive management are: daily monitoring; enclosures that provide sufficient feed; access to recovery enclosure; and habituation of horses to human approach.

Population control of the house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) and black rat (Rattus rattus) is common practice worldwide. Our objective was to assess the impact on animal welfare of lethal and non-lethal control methods, including three dispatch methods. We used the Sharp and Saunders welfare assessment model with eight experts scoring eleven control methods and three dispatch methods used on the three species. We presumed the methods were performed as prescribed, only taking into account the effect on the target animal (and not, for example, on non-target catches). We did not assess population control efficacy of the methods. Methods considered to induce the least suffering to the target animal were captive-bolt traps, electrocution traps and cervical dislocation, while those with the greatest impact were anticoagulants, cholecalciferol and deprivation. Experts indicated considerable uncertainty regarding their evaluation of certain methods, which emphasises the need for further scientific research. In particular, the impact of hydrogen cyanide, chloralose and aluminium phosphide on animal welfare ought to be investigated. The experts also stressed the need to improve Standard Operating Procedures and to incorporate animal welfare assessments in Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The results of our study can help laypeople, professionals, regulatory agencies and legislators making well-informed decisions as to which methods to use when controlling commensal rodents.

Animal welfare assessment at group level is a scientific discipline that is rapidly developing. The interest in welfare assessment systems is based on an ethical concern for the welfare of farm animals. The scientific community plays an important role in delivering an appropriate repeatable, valid and feasible framework for these assessments. Consideration of the potential applications of these techniques is important for deciding upon the requirements of specific assessment systems. This paper provides a brief overview of the different types of applications, which can be categorised broadly into research, legislative requirements (non-voluntary), certification systems (voluntary) and advisory/management tools. These applications may have various goals: quantification of welfare, provision of welfare assurance or welfare management. Assessment systems vary in many characteristics, such as whether they are animal- or resource-based, and whether they are based on single or integrated scores. Different applications will require different elements of these features.

In the social debate about animal welfare we can identify three different views about how animals should be raised and how their welfare should be judged: (1) the view that animals should be raised under conditions that promote good biological functioning in the sense of health, growth and reproduction, (2) the view that animals should be raised in ways that minimise suffering and promote contentment, and (3) the view that animals should be allowed to lead relatively natural lives. When attempting to assess animal welfare, different scientists select different criteria, reflecting one or more of these value-dependent views. Even when ostensibly covering all three views, scientists may differ in what they treat as inherently important versus only instrumentally important, and their selection of variables may be further influenced by a desire to use measures that are scientifically respected and can be scored objectively. Value assumptions may also enter animal welfare assessment at the farm and group level (1) when empirical data provide insufficient guidance on important issues, (2) when we need to weigh conflicting interests of different animals, and (3) when we need to weigh conflicting evidence from different variables. Although value assumptions cannot be eliminated from animal welfare assessment, they can be made more explicit as the first step in creating animal welfare assessment tools. Different value assumptions could lead to different welfare assessment tools, each claiming validity within a given set of assumptions.

The ability to measure objectively how an animal perceives its home environment is essential for improving the housing and husbandry conditions of laboratory animals. Chewing at cage bars by a rodent may reflect the animal's desire to escape from its home cage and thus provide a measure of the relative aversiveness or inadequacy of different housing conditions from the animal's viewpoint. To assess whether bar chewing by laboratory mice is an escape behaviour, adult male and female ICR-(CD-1) mice were housed individually or in same-sex groups of three in modified shoebox-type cages. Cages had two sets of external bars in the side walls, an equivalent set of bars fixed internally and a Perspex lid. One set of external bars opened daily, allowing the mice to escape into a larger arena. All mice showed a strong preference for chewing at external bars over those that were internal to each cage. After one week of experience, mice also preferred the external bars that opened daily to those that did not open. Behaviour directed towards the cage lid declined over time as the mice experienced the new escape route in the cage side. Interest in the external bars correlated positively with time since last escape. Results confirm that bar chewing reflects an attempt to escape the cage and explore the surrounding area and may provide a suitable behavioural measure of perception of the cage environment for use in welfare assessment.

From 2012 onwards, all laying hens in Europe will need to be housed either in furnished cages or non-cage systems (aviaries or floor-housing systems). In terms of animal welfare, furnished cages and non-cage systems both have advantages and disadvantages. Data on direct comparisons between the two, however, are limited. The aim of this study was to carry out an on-farm comparison of laying hens’ welfare in furnished cages and non-cage systems. To meet this aim, six flocks of laying hens in furnished cages and seven flocks in non-cage systems (all without an outdoor run) were visited when hens were around 60 weeks of age and a number of measures were collected: behavioural observations, fearfulness, plumage and body condition, incidence of bone breaks, bone strength, TGI-score (or Animal Needs Index), dust levels and mortality. In non-cage systems, birds were found to be more active and made greater use of resources (scratching area, perches) than in furnished cages. These birds also had stronger bones and were less fearful than birds in furnished cages. On the other hand, birds in furnished cages had lower mortality rates, lower incidence of bone fractures and lower airborne dust concentrations. When all the welfare indicators were integrated into an overall welfare score, there were no significant differences between systems. These results indicate that furnished cages and non-cage systems have both strong and weak points in terms of their impact on animal welfare.

The widespread use of transgenic animals in research, and especially for generating models of human disease, has given rise to calls for a careful documentation of transgenic strains with particular emphasis on characterizing phenotypes and their animal welfare aspects. Based upon several published suggestions for general health monitoring of laboratory animals and upon a questionnaire we developed for the characterization of transgenic strains, score sheets for litter-wise and individual data collection were tested in a pilot study. The documentation concept and some of the most important parameters are presented and discussed with respect to their feasibility and usefulness. The use of score sheets can help in determining the application of humane end points at the individual level, phenotype characterization and assessment of animal welfare for the whole strain, and the development of better breeding strategies - apart from being of direct scientific interest. We suggest that these score sheets, available via the Internet at: www.bzl.unizh.ch/de/database/formtransg/index2.html, should be applied for routine and comprehensive phenotype characterizations of transgenic mouse strains used and kept for animal experimentation.

The welfare of animals in extensive systems has received little attention despite significant welfare challenges in these environments. Additionally, recent reform of Common Agricultural Policy payments in the EU have put increasing financial emphasis on farmers to attain improved levels of animal welfare, although suitable methodologies for assessing animal welfare are lacking. Assessment of welfare in intensive systems frequently involves assessing compliance with buildings and space requirements, as well as behavioural observations of animals in their home pens and monitoring of health records. In extensive systems, however, many of these measures are inappropriate or impossible. Environments are often heterogeneous, animals may be difficult to observe, individuals may not be identifiable and health records may be limited or completely lacking. The expression of fear by extensive animals, which rarely come into close contact with humans, often limits the value and practicality of behavioural observations as welfare indicators. Currently, welfare audits of extensive farms rely greatly on mortality and morbidity records to determine welfare status. Whilst these measures are important, the strong health monitoring bias does not adequately allow an interpretation of the emotional experiences of extensive animals. We suggest that developing methodologies based on assessing key features of the environment, such as handling facilities, assessment of the skills, knowledge and planning of the stockperson, and assessing the animal at key points in the production cycle when they are gathered may allow a workable methodology for assessing animal welfare to be developed for extensive systems.

The vocalisations of animals are results of particular emotional states. For example, the stress screams of pigs may be indicators of disturbed welfare. Our objective was to develop a system to monitor and record levels of stress calls in pigs, which could be employed in environments of breeding, transportation and slaughter. Using a combination of sound analysis by linear prediction coding and artificial neural networks, it was possible to detect the stress vocalisations of pigs in noisy pig units with few recognition errors (<5%). The system (STREMODO: stress monitor and documentation unit) running on PCs is insensitive to environmental noise, human speech and pig vocalisations other than screams. As a stand-alone device it can be routinely used for the objective, non-invasive measurement of acute stress in various farming environments. The system delivers reliable, reproducible registrations of stress vocalisations. Its detection quality in commercial systems was found to correlate well with that of human experts. STREMODO is particularly well-suited for comparisons of housing and management regimes. Since the system can be trained to recognise various animal vocalisations, its use with other species is also well within its scope.

It is extremely difficult to carry out an assessment of welfare in an entirely objective manner. The choice of welfare indicators, as well as the assignment of relative weightings to these indicators, both involve a certain degree of subjectivity. The aim of this study was to create a possible method of dealing with this subjectivity, using the opinions of groups of experts to increase the consensus for a protocol for the on-farm assessment of laying-hen welfare. The selection of the 17 separate welfare indicators was based both on a questionnaire submitted to 18 international poultry welfare experts and on the practical feasibility of collecting the respective data during a one-day farm visit. Subsequently, a second group of 13 experts was asked to assign relative weightings to the welfare indicators in this protocol. This assessment was carried out twice, once with and once without provision of detailed information on the welfare indicators. When detailed information was provided, the weightings assigned to the welfare indicators were generally lower than when no detailed information was provided. In conclusion, subjectivity regarding the choice of welfare indicators and the assignment of their relative weightings, can be dealt with and made transparent by seeking consensus among experts. Although the choice of experts, the methodology for extracting consensus data, and the nature and amount of information on the welfare indicators that should be provided, are likely to benefit from further refinement, the data presented in this study should be valuable for the development and application of formalised protocols for an integrated assessment of the welfare of laying hens, on-farm.

A series of measures of calf welfare was developed through a process of expert consultation. A welfare assessment of group-housed calves was carried out on 53 UK dairy farms during the winter of 2000/01. The assessment used animal-based measures including direct observation of the calves and examination of their health history through a review of farm records. The findings from this were compiled into a profile of calf welfare which outlined the range of results for each measure used. The results fell into the three categories of respiratory health, nutrition and general appearance. A broad range of results was found across the farms visited for the measures in each of these categories. Some farms performed well for all measures taken, and no farms performed consistently badly across all aspects of calf welfare. The majority of farms combined aspects of both good and poor welfare performance.

There is a trend toward increasing intensification in dairy farming in the United Kingdom. In particular, there is concern over systems in which cows are housed throughout the year, as the behavioural restriction implicit in these systems is associated with poor welfare in other species. The aim of this on-going project is to determine how this affects the behaviour and welfare of dairy cattle. A range of behavioural, physical and health measures are being used to assess cow welfare on about 40 commercial British dairy farms. Initially, five farm types were identified from analysis of returns from a farmer questionnaire. Milk production level and housing type were the principal factors explaining variation in farm type. The sample groups are: high-, mid- and low-production cubicle-housing units, mid-production straw-court units, and cubicle-housing high-production zero-grazing units. Observations will take place over three winter housing periods (2000/01 to 2002/03), with recording on each unit taking five days. Our main hypothesis is that the behavioural and physical responses of ‘at-risk’ younger cows provide a sensitive indication of farm-level ‘stress’. Cows are marked according to age, and the feed-face videotaped continuously to record feeding time and social interactions. Temporal organisation of behaviour will be analysed using fractal mathematics and qualitative assessment approaches used in a human interaction test. Cow cleanliness, condition score, response to a novel object and the incidences of lameness and leg injury are recorded, and building quality is assessed. Ultimately, multivariate methods will be used to test our underlying hypothesis and to assess effects of housing and production type on behaviour and welfare. This analysis may identify key objective measures of welfare for use in farm assurance schemes.

Given the absence of a ‘Golden Standard’ for the objective determination of welfare, the collection and interpretation of data involving different parameters is essential for assessing the well-being of farm animals. The choice of parameters and the relative weights assigned to each of them are crucial for the outcome of the assessment. Both elements involve a certain degree of subjectivity. In this paper we discuss the basics of different methods used to integrate welfare parameters, focussing on the issue of scientific objectivity. We begin by addressing parameter selection, the assignment of parameter weightings or rankings and the qualifications necessary for ‘experts’ designing and applying the methodology. Five different approaches to integrating parameters are then discussed. The paper does not state a preference for any method, but aims to encourage discussion of key elements involved with the on-farm assessment of welfare.

The process of driving improvement in animal welfare has three stages: 1) assessment of animal welfare, 2) identification of the risk factors potentially leading to a compromise in animal welfare, and 3) interventions, in response to the risk factors, to bring about improvement in animal welfare. This process is applicable to animals farmed in commercial situations and for individual animals kept or worked in isolated environments. An impressive weight of knowledge has accumulated in the science of animal welfare assessment and this needs to be counterbalanced by development of mechanisms to actively improve welfare. In the case of animal welfare, interventions have to motivate the animal owner or carer to make changes to their own behaviour on behalf of a third party; the animal. This is a different situation from that described in the human health literature where interventions encourage people to take steps to improve their own well-being, thus benefiting themselves directly. The development of strategies to improve animal welfare require a multi-disciplinary approach including social scientists, psychologists and economists, however, the skills of animal welfare scientists are essential to ensure that interventions truly achieve improvements in animal welfare.

It is generally agreed that farm animal welfare is at a high level when the animals can behave naturally. Most of today's housing systems, however, differ considerably from the natural environment in which the behavioural organisation of the ancestors of our farm animal species evolved. Consequently, normal behaviour may be impaired in several ways. Frequency, duration or sequence of behavioural elements may be affected. Some normal behaviour patterns may not occur at all. The animals may also possibly behave in unnatural ways – in patterns that would never occur in nature. Furthermore, it is usual for farm animals to exhibit behaviour which is normal in form, but which is elicited by artificial structures within their housing system.

In view of these possible changes in normal behaviour, it is necessary to assess, for each farm animal species and each housing system, whether animal welfare is at risk in any way if the behaviour observed differs from the behaviour that would occur in a natural environment. In some cases the question can be answered by taking a theoretical evolutionary approach. In most cases, however, detailed knowledge about the behavioural organisation of the animals is necessary. Such knowledge is built up from animal motivation studies and investigations into the effect of environmental structures on animal behaviour.

A specific problem of on-farm animal welfare assessment is that there is often not enough time to collect sufficient data to make a judgement about the occurrence of normal behaviour. Resource-based assessment methods are appropriate as an alternative, provided that the resource standards used are based on evidence stemming from research into animal behaviour and motivation.

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.

Broiler chickens are the most numerous terrestrial farmed animals on earth. These birds can suffer a range of pathologies which result in lameness, and one technique for assessing the impact of lameness on the individual bird, and on the flock has been gait scoring. This paper describes a study where the results of the same training programme for validated gait scoring are compared for groups of assessors in Thailand, Brazil and New Zealand. A uniform course of training carried out in the classroom, through video assessment and through on-farm training was carried out in the countries named; a total of 95 persons being trained overall. A measure of agreement with the reference scale for the assessors' numerical responses was carried out using a Cohen's Kappa test, and the results indicated significant differences in the ‘origin position’ ie the view taken by the assessors of the impact of lameness on the bird before training had taken place, but a high degree of consistency in the response to training. The study demonstrated that gait scoring can be learned by assessors from different geographical and social backgrounds, and that the ‘rate of learning’ – the improvement in performance in relation to a standard, was similar between the countries studied. The ‘origin’ and ‘final’ position of the assessors pre- and post-training, from the different countries in relation to the reference standard is discussed.

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.