Over the past decade there has been huge growth in the implementation of animal welfare assessments and audits in a variety of animal applications around the world. These include quality assurance programmes for meat, milk and eggs, certification for specialty brands or food-labelling programmes, accreditation of zoos, laboratories and animal shelters, and proofs of compliance with animal welfare standards required by regulatory agencies. Assessing animal welfare in such practical settings poses challenges at many levels. The animal welfare measures chosen for an assessment must be valid, repeatable and robust, and the sampling techniques must provide accurate representations of the overall welfare status of large groups of animals. Animal welfare assessors can come from a range of backgrounds with varying skill levels and experience and need to receive adequate training to ensure reliability. Although automated measures for animal welfare assessments can reduce potential for assessor error and bias, save time and reduce costs they must be sufficiently validated.

Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) is part of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle, although its inter- and intra-observer reliability have not been reported. This study evaluated inter- and intra-observer reliability of the QBA for dairy cattle in experienced and inexperienced observers using videos. Eight experienced observers performed the QBA (20 descriptors) twice for 16 video clips (60 s per clip; series 1) showing 4-17 animals. They assessed another 11 video clips showing herds (4 shots of 30 s per clip; series 2). Ten inexperienced observers performed the QBA on both video series one time. Inter-observer reliability of experienced observers ranged from slight to moderate (both assessments of series 1), and from low to high (series 2) for descriptors, and from slight to moderate for the QBA score. Inter-observer reliability of inexperienced observers ranged from low to moderate (series 1), and from low to high (series 2) for descriptors, and was moderate (both series) for the QBA score. Intra-observer correlations varied largely per descriptor and observer. They were both negative and positive, and ranged from low to very high. High correlations, however, were not necessarily associated with low paired differences. Values of half of the descriptors and the QBA score differed amongst experienced and inexperienced observers. The QBA appears insufficiently reliable as a tool for welfare assessment in dairy cattle.

Dairy cattle have a high level of interaction with humans throughout their productive life. Welfare and productivity are affected if cows find these interactions aversive, so tests assessing fear of humans have been included in welfare assessment protocols. Practicality issues suggest that all animals on large farms cannot be tested. If a sub-sample is chosen, then animal factors affecting the response must be investigated. To assess the effect of age, 114 Holstein cows were tested at regular intervals across their productive lifetime. Animals were tested at 12-15 months of age, first breeding, prior to first calving, then at early, mid and late lactation for 1st and 2nd lactations and into their 3rd lactation. The test involved approaching each cow when standing in the passageway of the barn with sufficient space to retreat. Response was recorded on a 0-8 incremental scale, and several qualitative terms were scored using sliding scales from absence to full presence. There was a significant effect of age on response. Cows became more approachable with increasing age, up until the middle of the first lactation, with no further change beyond this stage. Cows became more at ease and less nervous with increasing age. Individual cow within-group rankings for tests at each stage showed correlation with rankings in the following stage. As this is a single-farm study, further research is necessary to assess interaction of factors such as housing, breed and quality of human handling on the long-term development of fear of humans. However, the results suggest that the age of the animal tested affects the response, and that animals of different age groups should be tested when a sub-sampling is required to assess welfare on large farms.

For monitoring purposes there is a need for a protocol to measure foot-pad dermatitis (FPD) on-farm. Therefore, we studied the effect of number of birds sampled, number of locations sampled and sampling location in a broiler house on the accuracy of measurement, in order to construct a protocol that can be applied in practice. Samples were taken from eight commercial flocks (Ross 308) at up to ten locations with up to 25 birds sampled per location. Foot-pad lesions were scored in all birds for both feet using the Swedish scoring method. No significant differences in FPD score were found between the first five birds and all birds sampled at a particular location. Although locations near the walls did not differ in FPD score from locations in the central area of a house, the severity of foot-pad lesions was unevenly distributed over the house. A model was constructed showing the inaccuracy related to the number of locations sampled in the house and the number of birds sampled per location. The model shows that in situations with at least five locations differences in inaccuracy are relatively small when a total of 100 birds or more is sampled. Inaccuracy is largest in a flock with variation in foot-pad scores, as compared to flocks with little variation. The results of this experiment can be used to determine the optimal sample size in a commercial broiler house.

A multitude of endocrine mechanisms are involved in coping with challenges. Glucocorticoids, secreted by the adrenal glands, are in the front line of the battle to overcome stressful situations. They are usually measured in plasma samples as parameters of adrenal activity and thus of disturbance. Unfortunately, collecting blood samples itself can disturb an animal. Thus, non-invasive methods for the determination of glucocorticoids or their metabolites have become increasingly popular. The pros and cons of various non-invasive sample materials (saliva, excreta, milk, hair/feathers and eggs) for glucocorticoid determination are given. Above all, faecal samples offer the advantage that they can be collected easily. In faecal samples, circulating hormone levels are integrated over a certain period of time and represent the cumulative secretion of hormones. Thus, the levels are less affected by short fluctuations or the pulse-like nature of hormone secretion. However, using this technique to assess an animal's adrenocortical activity is not especially simple. Whether frequent sampling is necessary or single samples will suffice depends upon the study's aim (whether one is examining the impact of acute or chronic stressors). Background knowledge of the metabolism and excretion of cortisol/corticosterone metabolites is required and a careful validation for each species and sex investigated is obligatory. The present review also addresses analytical issues regarding sample storage, extraction procedures and immunoassays and includes a comprehensive list of published studies (up to 2011) describing the use of such methods in farmed animals. Applied properly, non-invasive techniques to monitor glucocorticoid metabolites in faecal samples of various species are a useful tool for welfare assessment, especially as they are easily applied at farm or group level.

On-farm scoring of behavioural indicators of animal welfare is challenging but the increasing availability of low cost technology now makes automated monitoring of animal behaviour feasible. We discuss some of the issues with using automated methods to measure animal behaviour within the context of assessing animal welfare. Automated feeders (eg for dairy calves) can help measure the degree that animals are hungry and have potential to identify sick animals even in group housing. Such equipment is best used for longitudinal studies of individual animals rather than making comparisons between farms. Devices attached to animals (eg accelerometers or GPS devices) can help measure the activity levels of animals with a high degree of accuracy and can easily be transported between farms, making them best suited for welfare assessment at the group level. Automated image analysis has great potential to assess movement within groups of animals, but following individual animals can be difficult. The techniques have been validated against traditional methods (eg direct observation). The accuracy of measures taken automatically varies between methods but can be increased by combining measures. Technological developments have provided us with a variety of tools that can be used to monitor behaviour automatically, and these have great potential to improve our ability to monitor animal welfare indicators on-farm. However, it is important that methods be developed to measure a wider range of behaviour patterns. Animal welfare assessment schemes should not place undue emphasis on behavioural indicators solely on the basis that they can be monitored automatically.

Since 1999, animal welfare auditing programmes that utilise five numerically scored core criteria have been used successfully by major restaurant chains to monitor animal welfare in slaughter plants. They had to achieve specific numerical scores in order to remain on the approved supplier list. The five numerically scored criteria (critical control points) are: i) Percentage of animals that fall down during handling; ii) Percentage of animals moved with an electric prod; iii) Percentage of cattle or pigs vocalising in the stunning box or restrainer; iv) Percentage of animals stunned effectively with one application of the stunner; and v) Percentage rendered insensible when hoisted to the bleed rail (has to be 100% to pass the audit). Audit data collected in 2010 by two restaurant companies in 30 beef plants, indicated that 77% of them effectively stunned 100 to 99% of the cattle with a single shot from a captive-bolt gun. All 30 plants passed the audit, which required 95% of more of the cattle stunned with one shot. In eight pork plants with electric stunning, the tongs were placed correctly on 100% of the pigs held in a V-conveyor restrainer. In 95% of the beef plants, and 86% of 25 pork plants, 0% of the animals fell during unloading, movement in the lairage and during handling in the stunning area. In 81% of the beef plants and 77% of the pork plants, 5% or less of the animals were moved with an electric prod. The percentage of cattle vocalising in the stun box and during movement into the stun box was 3% or less in all the plants except one. All scores are per animal, an animal is stunned correctly in the first shot, or not stunned correctly. It either vocalises or it is silent. A passing score is required on all five of the numerically scored core criteria. Due to financial and time constrains, the same auditor assesses both welfare and food safety. Workshops for training auditors last 1.5 days and include two plant visits.

The term ‘depopulation’ is used in this case to describe mass euthanasia or killing of groups of animals on a farm for emergency disease eradication purposes. There are a number of guidelines for monitoring animal welfare during such operations, eg the OIE Terrestrial Health Code and the EU regulation on protection of animals at the time of killing, which can be useful when designing a specific monitoring system for depopulation. In this paper, the responsibilities of the competent authorities are identified, and a systematic approach to monitoring on-farm killing is proposed, including three major critical points: i) animal handling prior to killing; ii) the stun/kill quality, ie the effectiveness of the method used to render the animals unconscious and dead; and iii) confirmation of death prior to carcase disposal. The importance of good biosecurity routines, efficient disease detection systems, relevant training of staff and thorough contingency planning to prevent animal welfare problems from arising is strongly emphasised. It is the responsibility of national competent authorities to provide the appointed official veterinarians in charge of monitoring animal welfare during depopulation with proper tools, including anything from appropriate knowledge and practical checklists to the authority to demand immediate corrective action when necessary, and to develop systems for feedback and incorporation of experiences from previous outbreaks into the national contingency plans.

The WelFur project aims at the development of on-farm welfare assessment protocols for farmed foxes (the blue fox [Vulpes lagopus], the silver fox [Vulpes vulpes]) and mink (Neovison vison). The WelFur protocols are based on Welfare Quality® (WQ) principles and criteria. Here, we describe the WelFur protocols after two years of developmental work. Reviews for each of the 12 WQ welfare criteria were written for foxes and mink to identify the welfare measures that have been used in scientific studies. The reviews formed the basis for potential measures to be included in the WelFur protocols. All measures were evaluated for their validity, reliability and feasibility. At present, we have identified 15 fox and 9 mink animal-based (or outcome-based) welfare measures, and 11 and 13 input-based (resource-based or management-based) measures. For both foxes and mink, each of the four WQ principles is judged by at least one criterion, and seven out of the 12 criteria include animal-based measures. The protocols will be piloted in 2012. Using the WQ project and protocols as a model has been a fruitful approach in developing the WelFur protocols. The effects of the WelFur protocols will provide benchmarks from which the welfare of animals on European fur farms can be assessed.

Around the world, people who care for animals as stock-keepers, stockmen, farmers, producers are placed in a position where they can greatly influence the quality of life of the animals they manage. A stock-keeper's viewpoint on animal welfare and animal care will be enormously influenced by their cultural frame, how animals are viewed in the society where they live, and how much ‘permission to care’ the individual stockman sees as being granted to them in the place where they work. Sometimes the capacity to care is subsumed by commercial production pressures, lack of time, lack of motivation, perceived lack of resources, perceived lack of ‘value’ for individual animals, lack of perception of animal issues, or sometimes through a lack of knowledge or exposure to concepts of animal care and welfare. The extent and focus of animal welfare training is moulded by the needs of the audience, the company, the retailer or the legislator. For these reasons ‘one size fits all’ training is not usually appropriate, although there may be some general rules which can be applied to nearly all welfare training. These general rules include: do not start by importing values and technology/procedures which those trained cannot use; understand why the people you train do what they do; the initial training should be sympathetic to local knowledge and resources; engage with the industry and its affiliates and if at all possible, obtain government, professional and academic support and involvement; and beware that in the absence of knowledge and training, new technologies and new procedures can create new welfare problems.

Obtaining reliable welfare outcome measures from commercial farms can be challenging. We developed a training programme to train observers to score injuries of the tarsal joint, carpal joint and neck on dairy cows as part of an on-farm study. Twelve trainees were trained using protocols and photographs in a classroom session and on-farm visits. Continued repeatability checking was carried out during a refresher and mid-way assessment. Two trainers were used as the reference standard to which all trainees were compared. The study demonstrated that methods of scoring tarsal joint, carpal joint and neck injury can be learned by trainees from different backgrounds and high repeatability can be achieved and maintained at a very large regional or national level. Successful learning of injury scoring is dependent on protocols with strong definitions and photographs as well as repetitive training sessions. Additionally, continued repeatability checks are essential to ensure the reference standard continues to be met. This training programme can be used as a model to successfully train on-farm assessors.

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 New Zealand Animal Welfare Act 1999 imposes a duty of care on all owners and persons in charge, to provide for the physical, health and behavioural needs of the animals in their care. The Act provides for the development of codes of welfare by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) and gives legal status to the minimum standards that they contain when issued by the Minister of Agriculture. Codes are used to promote appropriate behaviour, establish minimum standards of animal care and encourage best practice by those in charge of animals. One of the main challenges in developing codes of welfare is to integrate the various, and often conflicting, social, ethical, economic and production management value judgments, with the available science, in a way that does not stifle innovation or require frequent alteration of the codes. In New Zealand we believe this is best achieved using minimum standards which are designed as animal-orientated statements of desired welfare outcomes, accompanied by one or more indicators by which achievement of the outcome can be measured or objectively assessed. Codes are primarily directed at educating the owners or persons in charge of animals of their legal obligations, encouraging voluntary compliance, and supporting industries in the development of compliance and quality assurance programmes. The challenge is to develop a consistent, whole-of-system approach to animal welfare compliance that focuses on interventions which encourage voluntary compliance or deter non-compliance before offending becomes serious and animal welfare is unnecessarily compromised. The aim of this paper is to describe New Zealand's policy, which is to develop outcome-based welfare standards, to promote and demonstrate maximum voluntary industry compliance with them, and to ensure that any serious breaches are detected and responded to effectively.

The welfare of animals in transit may be affected by driving events, such as acceleration, braking and cornering. The relationships between driving events and the behavioural responses of the animals were examined. A single-deck, non-articulated vehicle was fitted with a video-recording system, GPS and tri-axial accelerometer. Two drivers each drove three standard journeys (two 3-h stages on different types of roads) for each animal type. Six different groups of five cattle (Bos taurus), ten calves and ten pigs (Sus scrofa) were each transported on separate journeys. Cattle stood still for most of each journey. Calves spent more time lying down during the second stage of the journey than during the first. Although pigs spent some of the time lying down, they spent more time sitting down and this time was greatest on a motorway and during the second stage of the journey. Frequent adjustments to maintain stability were required in response to acceleration, braking, cornering and rough road surfaces. Some animals experienced repeated falls. Falls occurred after a series of different types of events. The fewest losses of balance occurred on the motorway. As a motorway is a limited access multi-lane carriageway not crossed on the same level by other traffic lanes, the driver does not normally undertake frequent vehicular adjustments to respond to road features. Therefore, motorways give animals an opportunity to rest and avoid discomfort from repetitive driving events. If drivers anticipate potential driving events and prepare for them, it will reduce the likelihood and severity of losses of stability.

An ever-expanding scientific literature highlights the impact of the prenatal environment on many areas of biology. Across all major farmed species, experimental studies have clearly shown that prenatal experiences can have a substantial impact on outcomes relevant to later health, welfare and productivity. In particular, stress or sub-optimal nutrition experienced by the mother during pregnancy has been shown to have wide-ranging and important effects on how her offspring cope with their social, physical and infectious environment. Variation in the conditions for development provided by the reproductive tract or egg, for instance by altered nutritional supply or hormonal exposure, may therefore explain a large degree of variation in many welfare- and productivity-relevant traits. The scientific literature suggests a number of management practices for pre-birth/hatch individuals that could compromise their later welfare. Such studies may have relevance for the welfare of animals under human care, depending on the extent to which real life conditions involve exposure to these practices. Overall, the findings highlight the importance of extending the focus on animal welfare to include the prenatal period, an aspect which until recently has been largely neglected.