The field of welfare science and public concern for animal welfare is growing, with the focus broadening from animals on farms to those in zoos and aquaria. Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are the most common captive cetaceans, and relevant regulatory standards are principally resource-based and regarded as minimum requirements. In this study, the farm animal Welfare Quality® assessment was adapted to measure the welfare of bottlenose dolphins, with a similar proportion of animal-based measures (58.3%). The ‘C-Well® ‘ assessment included eleven criterion and 36 species-specific measures developed in situ at three marine mammal zoological facilities, tested for feasibility and accuracy, and substantiated by published literature on wild and captive dolphins and veterinary and professional expertise. C-Well® scores can be calculated for each measure or combined to achieve an overall score, which allows for the comparison of welfare among individuals, demographics, and facilities. This work represents a first step in quantifying and systematically measuring welfare among captive cetaceans and can be used as a model for future development in zoos and aquaria, as well as a means to support benchmarking, industry best practices, and certification.

A single solution to promote higher animal welfare across the whole EU is unlikely due to significant regional differences and because what is most appropriate for each region depends on many factors. Based on analyses of eight member and candidate EU countries, this paper provides a conceptual framework, an ‘animal welfare roadmap’, which can be used to assess the stage of maturity of a country in farm animal welfare policy development and identify appropriate policy instruments and indicators to monitor progress towards higher animal welfare. The ‘roadmap’ consists of five sequential stages: increasing compliance with legislation; raising awareness; product development; mainstreaming; and integration of animal welfare with other issues. For each stage, specific policy instruments are identified alongside the category of stakeholders most likely to be influential in the implementation of each instrument. The policy instruments used to achieve these stages are those used by government departments/agencies, private enterprises, academic bodies or non-governmental organisations who formulate standards for animal welfare. These are supported by indicators best suited to document their effectiveness. Although we have emphasised how different situations and contexts within the EU mean that there is no single optimal policy instrument for the EU as a whole, but rather appropriate policy instruments should be selected according to the stage of development of a country or sector, we do propose a harmonised choice of indicators to allow benchmarking of changes at the EU level with regard to progress towards animal welfare.

In response to an increased public awareness regarding how livestock are reared, animal welfare scientists have attempted to develop new methods of welfare assessment at the farm level. Furthermore, in recent years they have increasingly moved away from the conventional approach of evaluating the provision of resources necessary to ensure good welfare, and have instead focused on the use of animal-based measures of welfare. In contrast, it is believed that farmers use mostly resource-based and management-based measures (eg the provision of food, water and housing) when assessing the welfare of their animals. They also seem to be driven more by economic and financial concerns than by the welfare of the animals per se, when it comes to the provision of animal welfare. Different approaches to the definition and assessment of farm animal welfare were explored in work carried out at Newcastle University as part of the Welfare Quality® project by both social and welfare scientists. Social scientists explored farmers’ perceptions and understanding of animal welfare, whilst welfare scientists developed animal-based measures of welfare for use in a prototype on-farm welfare monitoring system. Based on two separate surveys, this paper focuses on UK farmers’ perception and understanding of animal welfare and their criteria of assessment in contrast with those employed by welfare scientists, using a specific case study of pigs. Results show that, despite scientists being unaware of the findings from the farmer survey, they produced a set of measures to assess welfare which were very similar to those used by farmers. However, ‘instinctive’ terms used by farmers to describe (positive or negative) animal behaviour did not bear any relation to more objective welfare measures. Compared with conventional monitoring systems which focus more on the provision of resources to promote good welfare than on the animal itself, the prototype monitoring system may be more acceptable to farmers given that it uses similar animal-based measures to assess welfare to those they use themselves, and furthermore, the focus is on the animal.

Farm animal welfare is a societal concern, and the need exists for scientific protocols to assess welfare. This paper describes the development of a protocol to assess the welfare of sheep (Ovis aries) and its application in 36 farms in Norway. There were two parts to the protocol; the animal- and resource-based measurements obtained during farm visits, and the analysis of production data. Data collection took place during visits to 36 farms in the lambing season (April-May) in 2007 (n = 11) and 2008 (n = 25). A fear test was conducted, and ewes were scored on a scale from 0 to 3. Forty-one percent of the ewes tested had a fear score of 3, indicating the lowest level of fear. Mean (± SD) fear score across farms were 1.9 (± 0.5). Higher fearfulness was found to be associated with lower ewe body condition scores (BCS). Mean (± SD) BCS across farms was 2.6 (± 0.6). A relatively large proportion of the ewes had a BCS of 2 (41%), which may be associated with an increased risk of nutritional stress, disease and low productivity. Eight farms had more than 5% (range 5.4-24.4%) of lamb carcases categorised in the lowest conformation class, which may be an indication of a welfare problem. This study is the first step in the development and validation of a welfare assessment protocol for sheep, and further research is needed to assess the overall reliability of the protocol.

The present study seeks to evaluate the potential of a more cost-efficient animal welfare assessment by investigating the association between animal welfare indices (AWI) based on different data sources, namely register data (AWI 1, ie routine registrations, such as treatment, reproduction and abattoir data) and resource data (AWI 2, ie barn design and equipment) validated against animal-based data (AWI 3, ie direct animal observations). AWIs were created based on data from 73 Danish dairy herds. Indices for each information source were created by a weighted linear aggregation of herd level incidence and prevalence of the given indicators. Indicator weights were assigned by expert opinion for each of the AWIs. Linear dependency between the high cost AWI 3 and the two low cost AWI 1 and AWI 2 was investigated. Additionally, different time-periods of 90, 180 and 365 days prior to the actual on-farm collection of AWI 3 measures were evaluated in order to find the most predictive time-period of AWI 1. Predictive key indicators for on-farm animal welfare were investigated in uni- and multivariable analyses. Significant associations were found between the AWI 1 based on incidences 180 days prior to the farm visit and the AWI 3. Predictive key indicators were milk yield, abattoir and mortality data. Predictive models for 180 and 365 days prior to the on-farm assessment consisted of abattoir indicators, while the model 90 days prior included mortality and milk yield. The limited associations between indices and the predictive key indicators and models suggest that these cost-effective welfare assessments are not suitable to stand alone and cannot replace the actual animal welfare assessed by on-farm collection of animal-based measures.

This paper argues that the current drive towards greater use of animal-based measures for welfare assessment raises important issues for how farm visits by welfare assessors are performed. As social scientists, we employ a number of contemporary social science ideas to offer a new approach to examining the practice and performance of farm animal assessment. We identify key findings from a recent study of contemporary farm assessment and speculate upon what some of the challenges of introducing animal-based measures may be. We conclude by arguing for a greater awareness of how sets of knowledge are made, circulated, practiced and become an integral component of the procedures, practices and discourses around farm animal welfare assessment in farm assurance.

Animal welfare science is a burgeoning field, but research on cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) is lacking. Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) are the most well-known and studied cetaceans, particularly in captivity, and thus are used in this review as a model for other cetacean species. Despite the public interest and need for such research, studies specifically investigating dolphin welfare are lacking. This review uses the three broad categories of behaviour, health, and cognition, to discuss how dolphin welfare has been assessed thus far, and could be assessed in future. We present welfare indicators validated in other species that could be applied to dolphins, including innovative measures, such as cognitive appraisal of emotions. We provide a summary of practical recommendations for validating the indicators of bottlenose dolphin welfare. This paper aims to stimulate further research into dolphin welfare which could improve the lives of the animals themselves and ultimately support regulatory decisions. We recommend uniting expertise in cetology and welfare science in order to develop a holistic approach to dolphin welfare assessment.

Welfare assessment protocols using primarily animal-based measures are believed to give valid information about the welfare of animals. However, they tend to be time consuming and therefore costly, thus in practice there is often considerable reluctance to use them. In the present study, the relatively quick to use, simple but non-validated welfare assessment protocol for dairy cattle developed by the Danish Cattle Federation and the validated comprehensive Welfare Quality® protocol were compared in Danish conditions. In total, 44 Danish dairy herds were evaluated using the two protocols. The protocols were correlated on four sub-levels (corresponding to the ‘Principles’ in the Welfare Quality® protocol) and on the Overall welfare score. They correlated significantly with regard to the Principles ‘Good health’ and ‘Appropriate behaviour’. Significant correlations were not found for ‘Good feeding’, ‘Good housing’, and the Overall score. On the basis of this we changed the Danish Cattle Federation protocol by introducing six new measures, changing three measuring procedures and omitting two measures. This extended protocol was found to correlate significantly with the Welfare Quality® protocol in all four Principles and on the Overall score. The extended protocol still has the advantage of the original Danish Cattle Federation protocol whereby under Danish field conditions it will take only 2 h to apply as opposed to 7-8 h for the Welfare Quality® protocol. We believe that the extended protocol balances, in a good way, the demands of practicability against its value as a diagnostic test.

Good animal welfare is crucial for the success of circuses and zoos. Epidemiological studies of animal welfare that investigate associations between animal-based measures (ABMs) and resource- and management-based measures are needed. However, due to the relatively low numbers of animals within each species kept at individual facilities, such investigations can be difficult to carry out. In this paper, we report the analysis of a multi-facility epidemiological study using data from all regulatory inspections of circus and zoo animals in Sweden for 2010 to 2014. Information from 42 inspections of 38 circuses, and 318 inspections of 179 zoos was analysed. For ABMs assessed during routine inspections of circuses (n = 14) and zoos (n = 61), 9.1 and 14.3% did not comply with requirements for general care of hooves/claws and coat, 10.0 and 8.6% for body condition, and 0 and 1.7% for animal cleanliness, respectively. In addition, the zoo checklist assessed whether animals were kept in appropriate groups, finding non-compliance in 17.0% of inspections. The most frequent non-compliant resource- and management-based measures at routine inspections of circuses were for space (41.7%) and exercise requirements (38.5%). For zoos, 29.4% did not comply with space followed by 28.8% for enrichment requirements. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, zoos that had inadequate or unsafe housing and space design, inadequate bedding, or failed to meet nutritional requirements, were more likely to be non-compliant with at least one ABM. The checklists should be improved to better assess welfare status by including more ABMs; benchmarking of risks and trends over time is also recommended.

Despite increased concerns about dairy cattle welfare, there is a paucity of knowledge regarding their welfare and the attitudes of farmers and veterinarians in the Western Balkan region. This is the first on-farm study to address dairy cattle welfare and the attitudes of farmers and veterinarians towards animal welfare in Kosovo. Thirty tie-stall dairy farms across seven Kosovo regions were assessed twice with an interval of 10 to 12 months. During the first visit, the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol was applied, whilst the second visit focused on clinical animal-based indicators and interviews with the farmers regarding intervention thresholds for a number of welfare indicators. Additionally, such thresholds were obtained from 15 veterinarians via an online questionnaire. The main areas of concern that were highlighted relate to comfort around resting (soiling of animals, restriction of lying down movements) and injuries, including lameness. Farmers and veterinarians agreed on the intervention thresholds for the majority of the indicators (eg animals with dirty udders, animals with lesions/swellings) but differences were found for important health and welfare issues (eg farmers suggesting a higher threshold for lameness compared to veterinarians). Compared to the on-farm prevalences, both farmers and veterinarians suggested lower intervention levels for welfare issues indicating an awareness of problems. In conclusion, investments into close co-operation between farmers, veterinarians and other advisors regarding awareness-building and inducing changes in daily management routines are considered necessary to improve dairy cow welfare.

Stressful housing and management practices affect animals, potentially increasing their receptiveness to pathogens. Since some pathogens do not lead to clinical signs of sickness, subclinical pigs could enter the food-chain, contaminating carcases and offal at slaughter, representing a threat to human health. Here, we assess the feasibility of a new approach (using animal-based welfare outcomes) to investigate the association between the animal welfare status of finishing pigs on-farm and the occurrence of Yersinia enterocolitica and Salmonella enterica in slaughtered pigs in Northern Italy. Thirty batches of finishing pigs were assessed for animal-, resource- and management-based measures according to the Welfare Quality® protocol for pigs on-farm and at slaughter. A sample of five individuals per batch was tested for Y. enterocolitica and S. enterica in tonsils and in mesenteric lymph nodes, respectively, and gross pathological changes were recorded. Environmental faecal samples per batch on-farm were tested for the same pathogens. Univariable logistic regression models were used to investigate the association between batches of pigs that were positive to Y. enterocolitica and S. enterica and indicators of poor welfare. The animal-based measures of welfare, greater on-farm mortality and poor human-animal relationship, were found to be associated with Y. enterocolitica. This study provides a good indication of the validity of this approach, but there is a need for larger-scale studies in the future to confirm the magnitude of the associations between these animal welfare and food safety indicators.

The aim of this article is to discuss the farming industry's development and use of welfare assessment schemes. A welfare assessment scheme developed by the Danish Cattle Federation (DCF) is used as a case study. The declared aim of the DCF scheme is to improve animal welfare, farm profitability and dialogue with the public. It is the purpose of this article to attempt to understand the dilemmas arising from this broad aim. We ask how DCF measures of welfare compare with alternative measures in which economic factors receive less emphasis. We bring in farmers’ views on whether the DCF's parameters of welfare track welfare effectively and are economically feasible. We also discuss how the views of the Scandinavian public on animal welfare influences the likelihood that the DCF scheme will improve dialogue with the public. The DCF definition of welfare is broad, but the measures it deploys are more limited and indeed very narrow compared with those in other welfare assessment schemes. This may not be a problem if the goal is to improve farm profitability. However, if the goal is to improve welfare, limited measures are problematic, and this may undermine attempts to improve dialogue with the public.

In the UK, the pig industry is leading the way in the adoption of welfare outcome measures as part of their farm assurance scheme. The welfare outcome assessment (WOA), known as Real Welfare, is conducted by the farmers’ own veterinary surgeon. For the first time, this has allowed the pig industry to evaluate welfare by directly assessing the animal itself and to document the welfare of the UK pig industry as a whole. Farmer perspectives of the addition of a welfare outcome assessment to their farm assurance scheme have yet to be explored. Here, we investigate how the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol has been perceived by the farmers involved, what value it has (if any), whether any practical changes on farm have been a direct consequence of Real Welfare and ultimately whether they consider that the welfare of their pigs has been improved by the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol. Semi-structured interviews with 15 English pig farmers were conducted to explore their perceptions and experiences of the Real Welfare process. Our findings fall into three key areas: the lived experience of Real Welfare, on-farm changes resulting from Real Welfare and suggested improvements to the Real Welfare process as it currently stands. In all the three areas, the value farmers placed on the addition of WOA appeared to reflect their veterinary surgeon’s attitude towards the Real Welfare protocol. If the vet was engaged in the process and actively included the farmer, for example through discussion of their findings, the farmers interviewed had a greater appreciation of the benefits of Real Welfare themselves. It is recommended that future similar schemes should work with veterinary surgeons to ensure their understanding and engagement with the process, as well as identifying and promoting how the scheme will practically benefit individual farmers rather than assuming that they will be motivated to engage for the good of the industry alone. Retailers should be encouraged to use Real Welfare as a marketing tool for pig products to enhance the perceived commercial value of this protocol to farmers.

In terms of animal welfare, farming systems of dairy cows are perceived positively by consumers when compared to pigs or poultry. A main reason is that the majority of consumers associate dairy farming with pasture, which in turn they relate with benefits for animal health and welfare. However, holistic scientific assessments of the effects of pasturing on animal welfare are rare. Hence, it was the aim to study the animal welfare level in 61 German loose housing dairy farms by using the measures of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle (WQP). Data were collected twice per farm at the end of the pasture season (July to October) and approximately 6 months later at the end of the barn season (December to April). Farms were classified based on the duration cows had access to pasture per day during the pasture season: group 1 (G1)>10 h; group 2 (G2) 6 to 10 h; group 3 (G3)<6 h and group 4 (G4) without pasture access. The average herd size was 129 Holstein-Friesian or Red-Holstein cows (range 58 to 527). In addition to WQP data, performance data were gathered from routine herd data recordings. The indicators were aggregated to criteria applying the scoring system of the WQP. G4 received lower scores at the first than at the second visit for the criterion absence of hunger, while there were no differences between visits in the other groups (P=0.58 – group×farm visit effect). All pasturing groups were scored better at the end of the pasture season than G4 for the criterion comfort around resting (P<0.01). Compared with G1 for both farm visits and G2 for the end of the barn season, G4 reached inferior scores for the criterion absence of injuries, including indicators such as hairless patches, lesions, and swellings and lameness. At both assessments G2 was scored higher than the other groups for the criterion absence of diseases (P=0.04). In conclusion, pasture access had positive effects only on selected welfare indicators, however, these effects were not maintained throughout the barn season.

In Germany all keepers of livestock are legally required to record animal welfare indicators as part of their on-farm self-assessment. The Association for Technology and Structures in Agriculture (Kuratorium für Technik und Bauwesen in der Landwirtschaft e.V. (KTBL)) has suggested the use of a particular set of animal welfare indicators in their publication Animal welfare indicators: Practical guide – Pigs. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the inter-observer reliability (Inter-OR) and intra-observer reliability (Intra-OR) of these indicators with respect to the welfare of fattening pigs. For the assessment of Inter-OR, three observers evaluated six KTBL animal welfare indicators. The Inter-OR of the indicators was calculated from the results using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). ‘Excellent’ Inter-OR results were found for the indicators tail length (ICC 0.89), skin lesions (ICC 0.77) and ear lesions (ICC 0.80). In contrast, the Inter-OR of the indicators tail lesions (ICC 0.46) and faecal soiling (ICC 0.47) were considered to be only ‘fair’ and that of the indicator lameness (ICC 0.36) as ‘poor’. For the evaluation of the Intra-OR, the same three observers assessed the welfare of 162 to 200 fattening pigs using the same welfare indicators in total eight times. Again ICCs, here per indicator and observer, were used to calculate the Intra-OR. The Intra-OR of the indicators faecal soiling (ICC 0.81) and ear lesions (ICC 0.97) lay in the ‘excellent’ range on average. While the Intra-OR of the indicators skin lesions (ICC 0.67), tail length (ICC 0.74) and lameness (ICC 0.60) could still be considered as being ‘good’, the Intra-OR of the indicator tail lesions (ICC 0.52) could only be assessed as being ‘fair’. From these results the significance of the KTBL indicators could be judged as follows: it is possible to use all the chosen indicators apart from the indicator tail lesions as an internal controlling instrument or as part of an internal weak-point analysis as long as the indicators are evaluated by the same person. A comparison of the indicators tail lesions, lameness and faecal soiling when assessed by different observers should be considered critically because the Inter-OR of these three indicators could only be considered as being ‘poor’ to ‘fair’.

Determining welfare status in a population is the first step in efforts to improve welfare. The primary objective of this study was to explore a new epidemiological approach for analysis of data from official competent authorities that pertain to compliance with animal welfare legislation. We reviewed data already routinely collected as part of Swedish official animal welfare inspections for 2010–13, using a checklist containing 45 checkpoints (CPs). These covered animal-, resource- and management-based measures of equine welfare. The animal-based CPs were measures that directly related to the animal and included social contact, body condition, hoof condition and cleanliness. Non-compliance with one or more of the animal-based CPs was used as a binary outcome of poor equine welfare; 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using the exact binomial distribution. Associations were determined using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for clustering on premises. Resource- and management-based CPs (model inputs) were reduced by principal component analysis. Other input factors included premises characteristics (e.g. size, location) and inspection characteristics (e.g. type of inspection). There were 30 053 premises with horses from 21 counties registered by the Swedish Board of Agriculture. In total 13 321 inspections of premises were conducted at 28.4% (n=8532) of all registered premises. For random inspections, the premises-prevalence of poor equine welfare was 9.5% (95% CI 7.5, 11.9). Factors associated with poor equine welfare were non-compliance with requirements for supervision, care or feeding of horses, facility design, personnel, stable hygiene, pasture and exercise area maintenance, as well as the owner not being notified of the inspection, a previous complaint or deficiency, spring compared with autumn, and not operating as a professional equine business. Horses at premises compliant with stabling and shelter requirements had significantly better welfare if they also complied with documentation requirements. We present a novel approach for analysis of equine welfare data from regulatory inspections by the official competent authorities, and propose on-going analyses and benchmarking of trends in animal-based measures over time. We also suggest how such a database could be further improved to facilitate future epidemiological analyses of risk factors associated with poor equine welfare. The study has implications for other competent authorities and researchers collaborating in the area of animal welfare epidemiology.

Production systems for fattening pigs have been characterized over the last 2 decades by rising farm sizes coupled with increasing group sizes. These developments resulted in a serious public discussion regarding animal welfare and health in these intensive production systems. Even though large farm and group sizes came under severe criticism, it is still unknown whether these factors indeed negatively affect animal welfare. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the effect of group size (<15 v. 15 to 30 v. >30 pigs/pen) on various animal-based measures of the Welfare Quality® protocol for growing pigs under conventional fattening conditions. A total of 60 conventional pig fattening farms with different group sizes in Germany were included. Moderate bursitis (35%) was found as the most prevalent indicator of welfare-related problems, while its prevalence increased with age during the fattening period. However, differences between group sizes were not detected (P>0.05). The prevalence of moderately soiled bodies increased from 9.7% at the start to 14.2% at the end of the fattening period, whereas large pens showed a higher prevalence (15.8%) than small pens (10.4%; P<0.05). With increasing group size, the incidence of moderate wounds with 8.5% and 11.3% in small- and medium-sized pens, respectively, was lower (P<0.05) than in large-sized ones (16.3%). Contrary to bursitis and dirtiness, its prevalence decreased during the fattening period. Moderate manure was less often found in pigs fed by a dry feeder than in those fed by a liquid feeding system (P<0.05). The human–animal relationship was improved in large in comparison to small groups. On the contrary, negative social behaviour was found more often in large groups. Exploration of enrichment material decreased with increasing live weight. Given that all animals were tail-docked, tail biting was observed at a very low rate of 1.9%. In conclusion, the results indicate that BW and feeding system are determining factors for the welfare status, while group size was not proved to affect the welfare level under the studied conditions of pig fattening.

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.

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.