For the purposes of farm animal welfare assessment, Farm Assurance Schemes and enforcement of animal welfare legislation, a requirement arises for a unitary welfare score which may be the amalgamation of several animal welfare measures. In amalgamating measures, weighting to reflect the importance of the individual measures for animal welfare is desirable. A study is described in which conjoint analysis was used to collect and evaluate expert opinion to weight a number of welfare assessment measures for the importance of each to broiler welfare in UK husbandry systems. The statistically combined opinion of the experts consulted revealed the weighting factors of the welfare assessment measures selected, with respect to the importance for bird welfare, to be: 0.26 for mortality levels on the growing unit; 0.24 for the level of leg weakness; 0.16 for the level of hock burn; 0.14 for stocking density; 0.10 for enrichment provision; and, 0.10 for the level of emergency provision. Criteria for selection of welfare assessment measures for use in the field, and level of agreement between experts consulted for the study, are discussed. It is concluded that weightings of welfare assessment measures by expert opinion, using conjoint analysis, might be used in the construction of a welfare index for assessment of broiler welfare on-farm. Such an index should not be considered as a ‘gold standard’ for welfare measurement but as an evolving standard for welfare assessment, based on current knowledge.

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

Accurate identification of key welfare issues for captive elephants could improve standards and help in the development of a welfare index. In the absence of adequate scientific information on the relative importance of key issues, the views of a range of stakeholders were sought using adaptive conjoint analysis. Fifteen key welfare issues were identified by experts, and three to six Levels of each, representing common husbandry practices. In order of declining importance, 224 stakeholders rated the issues as enclosure substrate > group size > healthcare > enrichment > chaining > enclosure type > exercise provision > enclosure size > interaction with keeper > enclosure environment > keeper knowledge/experience > diet > contact method with keeper > display duration > enclosure security. Enclosure size was considered more important by scientists and keepers than zoo directors/managers and animal welfare organisation representatives. Animal welfare organisation representatives rated enclosure security higher than scientists. Keeper husbandry methods and ability of elephants to be active were two principal components in responses. Three principal groups of respondents were identified: scientists/veterinarians focusing more on conditions for the elephants and less on interaction with the public; keepers, focusing on keeper contact method, feeding and knowledge of elephants; and a group with mainly animal welfare organisation representatives/zoo directors focusing on enclosure security. It is concluded that there are some differences between stakeholders in their recognition of the most important welfare issues for elephants in zoos. However, recognising that a diversity of informed opinion is necessary to adequately devise welfare standards, an index of elephant welfare in zoos is proposed, based on the relative merits of different husbandry practices and the importance of the different issues.

This paper aims to contribute to the development of a cost-effective alternative to expensive on-farm animal-based welfare assessment systems. The objective of the study was to design an animal welfare index based on central database information (DBWI), and to validate it against an animal welfare index based on-farm animal-based measurements (AWI). Data on 63 Danish sow herds with herd-sizes of 80 to 2500 sows and an average herd size of 501 were collected from three central databases containing: Meat inspection data collected at animal level in the abattoir, mortality data at herd level from the rendering plants of DAKA, and medicine records at both herd and animal group level (sow with piglets, weaners or finishers) from the central database Vetstat. Selected measurements taken from these central databases were used to construct the DBWI. The relative welfare impacts of both individual database measurements and the databases overall were assigned in consultation with a panel consisting of 12 experts. The experts were drawn from production advisory activities, animal science and in one case an animal welfare organization. The expert panel weighted each measurement on a scale from 1 (not-important) to 5 (very important). The experts also gave opinions on the relative weightings of measurements for each of the three databases by stating a relative weight of each database in the DBWI. On the basis of this, the aggregated DBWI was normalized. The aggregation of AWI was based on weighted summary of herd prevalence’s of 20 clinical and behavioural measurements originating from a 1 day data collection. AWI did not show linear dependency of DBWI. This suggests that DBWI is not suited to replace an animal welfare index using on-farm animal-based measurements.

Structural development in the prime sector has led to increasing herd sizes and new barn systems, followed by less summer grazing for dairy cows in Denmark. Effects of grazing on single welfare measures in dairy cows – for example, the presence of integument alterations or mortality – have been studied under different conditions. However, the effect of grazing on welfare, conceptualised as the multidimensional physical and mental state of the animal, has not yet been studied in contemporary cubicle loose-housing systems. The aim of our study was to investigate, based on a Welfare Quality® inspired multidimensional dairy cow welfare assessment protocol, the within-herd effect of summer grazing compared with winter barn housing in Danish dairy herds with cubicle free-stall systems for the lactating cows. Our hypothesis was that cow welfare in dairy herds was better during summer grazing than during full-time winter housing. Furthermore, we expected improved welfare with an increase in daily summer grazing hours. In total, 41 herds have been visited once in the winter and once in the summer of 2010 to assess their welfare status with 17 different animal- and resource-based welfare measures. A panel of 20 experts on cattle welfare and husbandry evaluated the relative weight of the 17 welfare measures in a multidimensional assessment scheme. They estimated exact weights for a priori constituted severe compared with moderate scores of welfare impairment concerning each measure, as well as relevance of the measures in relation to each other. A welfare index (WI; possible range 0 to 5400) was calculated for each herd and season with a higher index indicating poorer welfare. The within-herd comparison of summer grazing v. winter housing considered all the 17 measures. The mean WI in summer was significantly lower (better) than in winter (mean 2926 v. 3330; paired t-test P = 0.0001) based on a better state of the integument, claw conformation and better access to water and food. Body condition and faeces consistence were worse in summer. Many daily grazing hours (range average above 3 to 9 h) turned out to be more beneficial than few daily grazing hours (range average above 9 to 21 h) for the welfare of the dairy herds. In conclusion, this study reports a positive within-herd effect of summer grazing on dairy cow welfare, where many daily grazing hours were more beneficial than few daily grazing hours.