Reliability of an avoidance distance test for the assessment of animals’ responsiveness to humans and a preliminary investigation of its association with farmers’ attitudes on bull fattening farms

Behavioral Welfare Research for the Management of Sanctuary Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)

Chimp Haven is a sanctuary for chimpanzees retired from biomedical research, rescued from the pet trade, or re-homed after other organizations could no longer care for them. To provide optimal care for over 300 chimpanzees, Chimp Haven's animal care team includes experts in behavioral science, veterinary treatment, and husbandry practices. To aid these teams in making routine welfare management decisions, a system of behavioral metrics provides objective data to guide decisions and track outcomes. Chimp Haven has built and piloted seven behavioral metric protocols over the past 5 years to provide staff with an objective and comprehensive picture of the chimpanzees' behavioral welfare. The data from behavioral observations, staff surveys, and routine staff documentation are analyzed and processed through Google Forms, ZooMonitor, Microsoft Power Bi, Microsoft Excel, and R. Each metric assists staff in making data-based decisions regarding the management of captive chimpanzees related to abnormal behavior, hair loss, wounding, social relationships, positive reinforcement training and overall wellness. In this article, we explore examples of each metric and how they have been utilized to monitor and make decisions for both social groups of chimpanzees as well as individuals. These metrics can be collected and shared easily in an understandable format, which may provide an important framework for others to follow to enable the tracking of welfare for other sanctuaries, non-human primates, as well as other species.

Drivers and indicators of dairy animal welfare in large-scale dairies (review)

While animal welfare concerns are rising globally, this has not been the case with lower- and middle-income economies in Africa and Asia such as Zimbabwe. These developing countries have their own problems which are not reported in developed countries, such as the harsh economic environment, limited technologies and different political and food security priorities. These factors limit focusing on animal welfare. Meanwhile, studies on animal welfare in these countries have been limited. The task of determining animal welfare is a very complex and can sometimes be very subjective since there is no gold standard protocol to be used in many developing countries. This paper reviews the main factors that are used to assess dairy animal welfare at a farm situation. The factors were categorised and generally discussed as drivers and indicators of dairy animal welfare. Key indicators reviewed in this study include but are not limited to production performance indicators, body condition scores, cleanliness scores, presence of clinical disease signs and physiological and behavioural indicators. Dairy animal welfare drivers discussed in this paper include but not limited to the general design of dairy cattle housing, presence of foot bath and shading facilities, presence and use of maternity paddocks, state of feeder and water troughs.

Obtaining an animal welfare status in Norwegian dairy herds-A mountain to climb

Introduction

Knowing the national status of animal welfare, one can identify welfare problems and set a benchmark against which improvements can be compared. Such a status is potentially invaluable for tangible, sustained animal welfare improvement. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to report the status of animal welfare in Norwegian loose-housed dairy herds as assessed using the Welfare Quality^® Assessment Protocol. Additionally, we investigated if the welfare status varied on a regional basis.

Methods

In total, 155 herds in eight of Norway's eleven counties were assessed by six trained Welfare Quality^® assessors. This article presents the herd prevalences of common welfare issues in dairy production in Norway, as well as integrated welfare scores. To determine whether welfare status varied regionally in Norway, generalized linear modeling was used to estimate the mean welfare score for five regions in the four Welfare Quality^® principles: A. Good feeding, B. Good housing, C. Good health, and D. Appropriate behavior. These estimated mean welfare scores and their 95% confidence intervals were subsequently assessed for significant variation.

Results

Encouraging findings included the low mean herd prevalence of 'very lean' cows (3.0%) and the high proportion of cows (59.8%) which could be touched during avoidance distance testing, indicating a positive relationship between stockpeople and their cattle. Challenges affecting the welfare of Norwegian dairy cows were also identified. Of particular concern were issues related to the cows' environment such as prolonged times needed to complete lying down movements and integument alterations. No herd was completely free of changes to the integument and, on average, 77.9% of each herd were affected either mildly or severely. Animal welfare did not appear to vary much between the five regions assessed. Our investigation revealed significant regional variation between two regions (Trøndelag and Vestlandet North) in only the Welfare Quality^® principle Good housing (p < 0.01).

Discussion

The almost complete absence of regional variation demonstrates that animal welfare status generally varies most at herd level. In conclusion, both welfare challenges and encouraging findings were identified in loose-housed Norwegian dairy herds. To improve animal welfare, herd-specific interventions are most likely to be effective in these herds.

A comparison of two manual catching methods of broiler considering injuries and behavior

The aim of this study was to compare the 2 manual catching methods in terms of injuries and behavior. Throughout 12 loadings on practical farms with the same standard, 1 container each was caught using the one-legged (1LCM) and 1 using the two-legged catching method (2LCM). The animals were filmed during loading to evaluate their behavior and subsequently examined regarding injuries. Wing flapping was observed more frequently in broilers caught with the 1LCM than 2 LCM. Carrying animals with neighbors (1 neighbor: P < 0.001; 2 neighbors: P < 0.001) and a grasping position at or above the tarsal joint (P < 0.001; P < 0.054) reduced wing flapping in both methods. A short grasping duration (P = 0.004), settling the broilers into the crate (P = 0.005) and avoiding striking the broilers against the crate (P < 0.001) reduced the occurrence of wing flapping. About 1.1% of 1LCM and 0.43% of 2LCM broilers were diagnosed with an epiphysiolysis. Catching with the 1LCM (P = 0.042), loading in lower crates (low vs. middle: P = 0.005; low vs. high: P = 0.008), a longer catching duration (p = 0.025) and female broilers (P = 0.007) had a higher chance for epiphysiolysis. Broilers loaded in lower crates (P = 0.007) and ones which showed more wing flapping (P = 0.015) had a higher chance for hematomas. A higher loading duration led to a higher risk of hematomas (prevalence: 1.5%) and a prevalence of 1.0% of broilers with severe injury in 2LCM in a simultaneously performed study (mechanical loading vs. 2LCM), in which manual loadings of entire barns were evaluated. This may be caused by fatigue of the workers. In summary, the catching method or number of grasped legs is not the decisive factor, but the compliance and implementation of the identified risks and careful handling of the animals are determining factors to reduce wing injuries caused by loading and wing flapping.

Association between breeding bulls' reactivity to humans or handling and their daily behaviour and growth

In beef cattle, reactivity to humans or handling by humans is considered a safety issue for farmers and to impact on productivity. Several testing procedures, associated with potential risks for both humans and animals, have been developed, involving simple human approach, free animals individually handled, or restraint in handling facilities. We investigated how such tests may be related to each other and which dimensions they reveal. Of particular interest is the tolerance towards human approach or handling involving human or chute restraint, and whether they could be linked to the daily activity of animals and their growth, potentially enabling this activity to be used as a proxy for evaluating this reactivity to humans and handing. We observed 498 Limousin breeding bulls, of up to 14 months of age, at a bull testing station during standardised behavioural tests involving humans and handling: human approach at the feed barrier or out of the home pen during individual morphological evaluation, docility test where the experimenter attempts to maintain the bull in the corner of a test pen, and during restraint in a chute for weighing. Routinely collected on farm at approximately 8 months of age, bulls' reaction scores to human approach were also available. The animals wore MEDRIA collars with 3D-accelerometers that continually monitored their daily activities (ingestion, rumination, rest, etc.). Three 2-week periods spanning 4 months were analysed. We conducted a varimax-rotated principal component analysis (PCA) on behavioural tests: the first component (23.63% of the variability) summarised scores during restraint in the chute, and the second component (19.36% of the variability) summarised avoidance distance score at the feed barrier, score during morphological evaluation, and docility score. The daily activity of the bulls was consistent across the three 2-week periods that were analysed and was not related to the PCA dimensions (P > 0.1). Animals that could be approached at a closer distance reached a heavier weight at the age of 400 days (P < 0.001). In conclusion, within the limits of the test used, breeding bulls' reactivity to humans or handling comprised at least two dimensions: reactivity to human approach and reactivity to restraint (in the chute); which cannot be predicted from the animal's daily activity. A bull's acceptance of being approached by humans was positively related to its growth.

Welfare of beef cattle in Australian feedlots: a review of the risks and measures

The rising global demand for animal protein is leading to intensification of livestock production systems. At the same time, societal concerns about sustainability and animal welfare in intensive systems is increasing. This review examines the risks to welfare for beef cattle within commercial feedlots in Australia. Several aspects of the feedlot environment have the potential to compromise the physical and psychological welfare of cattle if not properly monitored and managed. These include, but are not limited to, animal factors such as the influence of genetics, temperament and prior health, as well as management factors such as diet, pen design, resource provision, pregnancy management, and stock-person attitudes and skills. While current industry and producer initiatives exist to address some of these issues, continuous improvements in welfare requires accurate, reliable and repeatable measures to allow quantification of current and future welfare states. Existing measures of welfare are explored as well as proxy indicators that may signal the presence of improved or reduced welfare. Finally, potential future measures of welfare that are currently under development are discussed and recommendations for future research are made.

Test-Retest Reliability of the 'Welfare Quality® Animal Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sows and Piglets'. Part 1. Assessment of the Welfare Principle of 'Appropriate Behavior'

Simple Summary

The EU-funded Welfare Quality^® project generated species-specific assessment protocols to evaluate the welfare of pigs, poultry, and cattle. With the implementation to be used for certification purposes, it is important that the protocols show consistency over time, which describes the extent to which equal results are achieved if the assessment is performed repetitively. The protocols should not be sensitive to slight changes in the on-farm situation but mirror the long-term welfare situation on-farm. The present study aimed at testing this consistency over time of the indicators included in the ‘Welfare Quality^® animal welfare assessment protocol for sows and piglets’. Thereby, the study focused on the indicators to assess the welfare principle ‘appropriate behavior’. As a result, the indicators applied to assess the animals’ ‘appropriate behavior’ did not represent consistency over time. Thus, further investigation is needed before implementation on-farm. Conclusively, the present study contributes to the development of generally accepted and objective assessment protocols for animal welfare and thereby to the improvement of farm animals’ welfare overall.

Abstract

The present study’s aim was to assess the test−retest reliability (TRR) of the ‘Welfare Quality^® animal welfare assessment protocol for sows and piglets’ focusing on the welfare principle ‘appropriate behavior’. TRR was calculated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), smallest detectable change (SDC), and limits of agreement (LoA). Principal component analysis (PCA) was used for deeper analysis of the Qualitative Behavior Assessment (QBA). The study was conducted on thirteen farms in Northern Germany, which were visited five times by the same observer. Farm visits 1 (F1; day 0) were compared to farm visits 2 to 5 (F2–F5). The QBA indicated no TRR when applying the statistical parameters introduced above (e.g., ‘playful‘ (F1–F4) RS 0.08 ICC 0.00 SDC 0.50 LoA [−0.62, 0.38]). The PCA detected contradictory TRR. Acceptable TRR could be found for parts of the instantaneous scan sampling (e.g., negative social behavior (F1–F3) RS 0.45 ICC 0.37 SDC 0.02 LoA [−0.03, 0.02]). The human−animal relationship test solely achieved poor TRR, whereas scans for stereotypies showed sufficient TRR (e.g., floor licking (F1–F4) RS 0.63 ICC 0.52 SDC 0.05 LoA [−0.08, 0.04]). Concluding, the principle ‘appropriate behavior’ does not represent TRR and further investigation is needed before implementation on-farm.

Avoidance Distance in Sheltered Cows and Its Association with Other Welfare Parameters

The human-animal relationship is an important welfare parameter in animal welfare assessment in cows, and the avoidance distance of cows to a stranger at the feed bunk is measured to assess this relationship. The assessment of the human-animal relationship in cow shelters in India, where old, unproductive, and abandoned cows are sheltered, is important to explore the welfare of cows in these shelters. The cows observed were of indigenous Indian breeds and breeds which were crosses between indigenous breeds and pure bred exotic cows. The human-animal contact in this context is of particular interest for welfare assessment as traditional Indian farming and sheltering systems involves regular close human-animal contact. In a cross-sectional study across 6 states, 54 cow shelters were visited and 30 cows in each shelter were randomly selected (1620 in total) for the assessment of avoidance distance and other cow-based (27 parameters) and resource-based (15 parameters) welfare parameters. Avoidance distance was assessed 1 h after morning feeding. Cows standing at the feeding manger were approached from the front at a rate of one step/s, starting 2 m away from the manger. The distance between the assessor's hand and the cow's head was estimated at the moment the cow moved away and turned its head, using a four-point scale (0, touched; 1, 0-50 cm; 2, 51-100 cm; and 3, >100 cm). The majority, 52%, of the cows allowed touch by the assessor and another 32% allowed approach within 50 cm, demonstrating tolerance, or even solicitation of close human-animal relationships by the cows. Avoidance distance increased with the proportion of cows with dirty hind limbs, tarsal joint swellings, and hair loss, and the extent of rumen fill. There was also evidence of reduced avoidance distances in cows with high levels of body condition score (BCS), dirty flanks, tarsal joint ulceration, carpal joint injuries, diarrhoea, hampered respiration, lesions on the body due to traumatic injuries, and body coat condition, probably as a result of moving difficulties. The avoidance distance was thus related to the health and welfare of the cows, providing a vital insight into the factors affecting human-animal contact in the shelters.

Human-Animal Interactions in Dairy Buffalo Farms

Simple Summary

The quality of the human-animal relationship plays a central role in determining animal welfare. In this study, we assessed the relationship between stockperson behavior and buffalo behavior. In particular, during milking, we recorded the behavior of stockpeople in terms of quality and quantity of interactions, and we recorded the behavior of animals in terms of restlessness, whereas at the feeding place, we measured the avoidance distance. Avoidance distance of an animal can be defined as the distance to which the animal will allow an unknown person to approach before moving to the side or away. We found that a high percentage of negative stockperson interactions (shouting, talking impatiently, slapping, and handling forcefully) were associated with a high avoidance distance at the feeding place and restlessness during milking. Therefore, appropriate stockpeople training should be conducted to improve the human-animal relationship with positive effects on animal welfare, productivity, and stockpeople safety.

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the relationship between stockperson behavior and buffalo behavior. The research was carried out in 27 buffalo farms. The behavior of stockpeople and animals during milking and the avoidance distance at the feeding place were recorded. Recordings were repeated within one month to assess test-retest reliability. A high degree of test-retest reliability was observed for all the variables with Spearman rank correlation coefficients (r_s) ranging from 0.578 (p = 0.002, df = 25) for the number of kicks performed during milking to 0.937 (p < 0.001, df = 25) for the percentage of animals moving when approached by ≤ 0.5 m. The number of negative stockperson interactions correlated positively with the number of kicks during milking (r_s = 0.421, p < 0.028, df = 25) and the percentage of animals injected with oxytocin (r_s = 0.424, p < 0.027), whereas the percentage of negative stockperson interactions correlated positively with the percentage of buffaloes moving when approached at a distance >1 m (r_s = 0.415, p < 0.031, df = 25). In a subsample of 14 farms, milk yield was correlated positively with the number of positive interactions (r_s = 0.588, p < 0.027, df = 12) and correlated negatively with the number of steps performed by the animals during milking (r_s = −0.820, p < 0.001, df = 12). This study showed that the quality of stockpeople interactions may affect buffalo behavior and production.

Test-retest reliability of the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for pigs applied to sows and piglets. Part 2. Assessment of the principles good feeding, good housing, and good health1

The present study aimed at testing the feasibility and on-farm test-retest reliability of the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for pigs applied to sows and piglets. The study was conducted on 13 farms in Northern Germany, which were visited 5 times by the same observer, and included 2 experimental setups: first, the complete Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for sows and piglets was applied to the farms. Second, additional assessments in the gestation unit considered all sows. The complete protocol assessments were used to evaluate the feasibility of the protocol. Furthermore, the data were analyzed with regard to on-farm test-retest reliability. The present publication focuses on the Welfare Quality principles good feeding, good housing, and good health, which are based on individual indicators (IN). The second experimental setup was utilized to verify the test-retest reliability of IN in the gestation unit with an increased number of animals under assessment. The test-retest reliability was calculated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (RS), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), smallest detectable change (SDC), and limits of agreement (LoA). Farm visit 1 (F1; day 0) was set as a reference and compared with farm visits 2 to 5 (F2 to 5; day 3, week 7, month 5, month 10). The IN of the above-named Welfare Quality principles achieved mostly acceptable test-retest reliability (e.g., wounds on the body F1 to F4: RS 0.34 to 0.57, ICC 0.40 to 0.41, SDC 0.02 to 0.12, LoA [-0.03; 0.02] to [-0.09; 0.14]) in terms of the on-farm test-retest reliability. Poor test-retest reliability was detected for body condition score concerning the principle good feeding, for bursitis and panting in sows and for huddling and panting in piglets within the principle good housing, and finally for vulva lesions, metritis, and local infections in sows and for scouring and lameness in piglets in the principle good health. Variations among the farm visits, which resulted in poor test-retest reliability, may be explained by seasonal effects (panting), moving animals (bursitis, lameness, huddling), rare occurrences of diseases (metritis, local infections, scouring), and differently conditioned sow groups (body condition score). The second experimental setup confirmed the results for IN in the gestation unit. Thus, the reported test-retest reliability determines the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for sows and piglets to be a reliable approach to assess welfare in sows and piglets.

Human and farm influences on dairy cows´ responsiveness towards humans - a cross-sectional study

The human-animal relationship can have a major impact on cow welfare and stockpersons´ work safety and quality. This cross-sectional study investigated possible effects of stockperson and farm related factors on cows´ behaviour towards humans in different test situations on a range of farm types including farms with automatic milking system. On 32 dairy farms, cows´ avoidance distances (AD), tolerance to tactile interactions (TTI), behavioural reactions during and after release from restraint (RB) and expressive behaviour by means of qualitative behaviour assessment (QBA) were recorded. Multiple regressions were calculated to analyse associations between the cows´ responses towards humans and factors of stockpersons´ attitudes, factors of human-animal contact and further herd and management characteristics. Positive attitudes towards cows were significantly associated with calmer cows in all test situations. Furthermore, different herd and management factors were related to individual variables of cows´ behaviour towards humans: for instance, the percentage of dehorned cows in the herd was associated with more fearful cows; the frequency of human-animal contact, manual feed provision, or selection for docility were associated with calmer cows. Explained variances were highest for the outcome variables AD and QBA. Directly or indirectly all factors remaining in the final models may be related to the amount and quality of human-animal contacts. Thus, the results suggest that on a broad range of different farm types a positive attitude and frequent human-animal contact can contribute to calmer cows in different interactions with humans in the barn.

Risk factors and indicators of reduced welfare of grazing dairy cows from selected smallholder dairy farms in Midlands Province, Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe's smallholder dairying faces many challenges that affect the welfare of dairy cows; however, the status of this welfare has not yet been determined. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Midlands Province on 41 active smallholder dairy farms with 86 cows in winter and summer to determine the risk factors and indicators to impaired cow welfare. These objectives were achieved using farmer questionnaires and direct observations. Eleven percent of the observed cows were severely lame in summer while only 5% were severely lame in winter. Lameness was significantly associated with season, absence of shade, breed, and low dipping frequency; 58% of the cows had low body condition scores (BC < 3) and this low BC was associated with low frequency of protein (p = 0.002) and vitamin (p = 0.012) supplementation recorded in more than 52% of the farms visited. In winter, only 11% of the observed cows were heavily soiled (score 3), while in summer 64% of the cows were heavily soiled and this was associated with slurry accumulation in more than 80% of the observed cattle pens as well as the study season (p < 0.001). A quarter (26%) of the studied animals had visible teat lesions on the teat skin and this was associated with the type of lubricant used (p = 0.011). Only 34% of the cows allowed an approaching stockman to touch them and this was associated with shouting (p = 0.012) and whipping of cows (p = 0.002). The study concluded that welfare of dairy cows was poor in most of the smallholder dairy farms studied.

Application of the Welfare Quality® assessment system on European beef bull farms

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.

On-farm animal welfare assessment in beef bulls: consistency over time of single measures and aggregated Welfare Quality(®) scores

Consistency over time of (on-farm) animal welfare assessment systems forms part of reliability, meaning that results of the assessment should be representative of the longer-term welfare state of the farm as long as the housing and management conditions have not changed considerably. This is especially important if assessments are to be used for certification purposes. It was the aim of the present study to investigate consistency over time of the Welfare Quality(®) (WQ(®)) assessment system for fattening cattle at single measure level, aggregated criterion and principle scores, and overall classification across short-term (1 month) and longer-term periods (6 months). We hypothesized that consistency over time of aggregated criterion and principle scores is higher than that of single measures. Consistency was also expected to be lower with longer intervals between assessments. Data were obtained using the WQ(®) protocol for fattening cattle during three visits (months 0, 1 and 7) on 63 beef farms in Austria, Germany and Italy. Only data from farms where no major changes in housing and management had taken place were considered for analysis. At the single measure level, Spearman rank correlations between visits were >0.7 and variance was lower within farms than between farms for six and two of 19 measures after 1 month and 6 months, respectively. After aggregation of single measures into criterion and principle scores, five and two of 10 criteria and three and one of four principles were found reliable after 1 and 6 months, respectively. At the WQ(®) principle level, this was the case for three and one of four principles. Seventy-nine per cent and 75% of the farms were allocated to the same overall welfare category after 1 month and 6 months. Possible reasons for a lack of consistency are seasonal effects or short-term fluctuations that occur under normal farm conditions, low prevalence of clinical measures and probably insufficient sample size, whereas poor inter-observer agreement leading to inflation of correlation can be ruled out. At the criterion and principle level, aggregation of information into scores appears to partly smoothen undirected variation at the single measure level without losing sensitivity in terms of welfare evaluation. Reliable on-farm animal welfare assessments should therefore be based on repeated assessments. Further long-term studies are recommended to better understand the factors influencing consistency over time.

The behaviour and welfare of buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis) in modern dairy enterprises

This review deals with the behaviour of river buffaloes (Bubalus bubalis), in confinement and in extensive conditions, also focusing on the effects of different housing and rearing conditions on their welfare. The behavioural repertoire expressed by buffaloes in extensive and intensive conditions is similar to those displayed by other domestic ruminants. However, through natural selection, buffaloes have also acquired several morphological, physiological and behavioural (i.e. wallowing) adaptations to hot climatic conditions. Buffaloes kept in intensive conditions and having no access to pasture and water for wallowing extend their periods of idling and are less often involved in investigative activities. Confinement is also associated with a reduction of space; however, no specific studies have been carried out to determine the specific requirements of this species. Space restriction can adversely affect various aspects of buffalo welfare, such as health (increased levels of lesions and injuries), social behaviour (increased number of agonistic interactions) and heat dissipation. The buffaloes, originating from tropical areas, are well adapted to large variations in food availability and quality, and to dietetic unbalances. As to human animal relationship, it has been observed that the incidence of stepping and kicking behaviour of buffaloes in the milking parlour is positively correlated with the frequency of oxytocin injections, whereas the frequency of positive stockperson interactions with the animals such as talking quietly, petting and gentle touching are negatively correlated with the number of kicks during milking. Data from farms where both dairy cattle and buffaloes are present show that avoidance distance measured in the pen is lower in buffaloes than in cattle. This may be attributed to the fact that buffaloes are generally recognised to be curious animals. Finally, the effects of different farming practices on animal-related indicators are described. However, these measures should be integrated into a monitoring protocol, such as the Welfare Quality® scheme, to reliably assess buffalo welfare in the current intensive farming conditions.

Intensity of oestrus signalling is the most relevant indicator for animal well-being in high-producing dairy cows

Full signalling of oestrous behaviour is vital for proper timing of AI and good reproductive performance, currently jeopardized by shorter observations of oestrus behaviour. Alternative indicators including progesterone (P(4)) recordings on-farm are tested. Oestrous intensity of 37 heifers (H) and 30 1st-parity dairy cows (C(1)) either Swedish Red (32) or Swedish Holstein (35) with high genetic potential for milk production, was studied in relation to AI. P(4)-levels in blood or milk were monitored on-farm at 0, 7, and 20 d post-AI with a portable ELISA reader (eProCheck(800)). Avoidance distance and body condition were scored at day 7, and pregnancy diagnosed by P(4) (day 20) and trans-rectal palpation (day 50). More heifers (46%) than C(1)-cows (10%) showed standing oestrus (strongest intensity, P < 0.05), leading to higher pregnancy rate at d50 (72% versus 37% for C1, P < 0.01) and calving rate (H: 64%, C1: 33%, P < 0.05). Avoidance distances were short (<1 m), reflecting good human-animal interaction. Visually-recorded standing oestrus yielded 4.8 fold higher odds of pregnancy, respectively 4.6-fold higher odds of calving. On-farm P4-recordings had complementary value yet less accuracy. Intensity of oestrus signalling relates to animal well-being, reflected in pregnancy-to-term being a good indicator for optimal welfare in high-producing dairy cattle.

From "Animal Machines" to "Happy Meat"? Foucault's Ideas of Disciplinary and Pastoral Power Applied to 'Animal-Centred' Welfare Discourse

Simple Summary

This paper considers some recent developments in ‘animal-centred’ welfare science, which acknowledges the sentience of ‘farmed’ animals, alongside the emergence of a market for ‘happy meat’, which offers assurances of care and consideration for ‘farmed’ animals to concerned consumers. Both appear to challenge the instrumental ‘machine’ model characteristic of ‘factory farming’. However, in both cases, this paper argues that these discourses of consideration for the well-being of ‘farmed’ animals work to appease and deflect ethical concerns while facilitating the continued exploitation of ‘farmed’ animals.

Abstract

Michel Foucault's work traces shifting techniques in the governance of humans, from the production of ‘docile bodies’ subjected to the knowledge formations of the human sciences (disciplinary power), to the facilitation of self-governing agents directed towards specified forms of self-knowledge by quasi-therapeutic authorities (pastoral power). While mindful of the important differences between the governance of human subjects and the oppression of nonhuman animals, exemplified in nonhuman animals' legal status as property, this paper explores parallel shifts from disciplinary to pastoral regimes of human-‘farmed’ animal relations. Recent innovations in ‘animal-centred’ welfare science represent a trend away from the ‘disciplinary’ techniques of confinement and torture associated with ‘factory farms’ and towards quasi-therapeutic ways of claiming to know ‘farmed’ animals, in which the animals themselves are co-opted into the processes by which knowledge about them is generated. The new pastoral turn in ‘animal-centred’ welfare finds popular expression in ‘happy meat’ discourses that invite ‘consumers’ to adopt a position of vicarious carer for the ‘farmed’ animals who they eat. The paper concludes that while ‘animal-centred’ welfare reform and ‘happy meat’ discourses promise a possibility of a somewhat less degraded life for some ‘farmed’ animals, they do so by perpetuating exploitation and oppression and entrenching speciesist privilege by making it less vulnerable to critical scrutiny.