TECHNICAL REPORT submitted to EFSA. Animal welfare risk assessment guidelines on housing and management. (EFSA Housing Risk) 1

Transcription

1 TECHNICAL REPORT submitted to EFSA Animal welfare risk assessment guidelines on housing and management (EFSA Housing Risk) 1 Prepared by Wageningen UR Livestock Research (formerly known as ASG Veehouderij bv) Abstract on 27 August 2010 The technical report on Animal welfare risk assessment guidelines on housing and management presents the description of the main housing and management systems for cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, laying hens, broilers, broiler breeders, turkeys, ducks and geese. The hazard identification, hazard characterisation and exposure assessment related to housing and management conditions of farm animals are also included in the report. The possible monitoring points to assess animal welfare and a risk assessment methodology for evaluating the welfare of farmed animals are also discussed. Summary The technical report on Animal welfare risk assessment guidelines on housing and management is subdivided in four different sections: i) workpackage 1 (WP1) on the description of main housing and management systems, ii) workpackage 2 (WP2) on hazard identification and characterisation, and exposure assessment related to housing and management conditions of farm animals, iii) workpackage 3 (WP3) about monitoring points to assess animal welfare and iv) workpackage 4 (WP4) on the development of a risk assessment methodology. In WP1, a scientific review has been made of the current state of the art with regard to housing and management of cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, laying hens, broilers, broiler breeders, ducks, geese and turkeys. In this review the housing and management conditions in various housing systems were described. Often different housing and management is applied for rearing animals and (re)producing animals, so per species this distinction was made. As it 1 (Question No EFSA-Q ). Accepted for Publication on 15 December 2010

2 would be impossible to describe all possible housing systems, a selection was made of a maximum of three housing and management systems per species for rearing and (re)production. Apart from that, regional differences were taken into account and described where relevant. To clarify housing systems, drawings and photos were included in the report. Regional distribution was provided in number of animals per EU-country. For this review recent reports and opinions published by EFSA were used, combined with scientific papers. In some situations no formal information was available, so expert opinions were expressed. For broilers and broiler breeders an EFSA publication is in preparation. Through good contacts between the groups, the draft report of the broilers and broiler breeders could be used for this project. In WP2, various possibilities were discussed for the description of the potential hazards of housing and management for animal welfare. One of the aims was to use the 12 criteria for welfare that were developed in the Welfare Quality project as a structure for the listing of the potential hazards. Two methods were suggested to incorporate the criteria in the risk assessment: the Criteria to Hazard (or Forward ) method, and the Hazard to Criteria (or Backward ) method. The two methods were discussed and worked out for various species. A third, general approach was also discussed. The basic idea here was to produce a more generalized list, independent from animal species. It uses the 12 Welfare Quality criteria to derive a general set of hazards. This approach is good for quick and dirty screening, and may be a good framework for future work. The draw back is that risk assessment based on such a general list is likely to be less accurate. Further discussion is required to investigate if it can replace detailed species-specific risk assessment or standardise risk assessment and make risk estimates comparable between assessment systems and between husbandry systems. As all 3 methods could have advantages, it was decided to work on all 3. For cattle and pigs recent hazard lists were available and it was decided to use those for further development according to method 1 and 2. For the general list of hazards the start was made through the 12 Welfare Quality criteria. The draft list of hazards for broiler breeders, that was made available by the EFSA working group working on broilers and broiler breeders, was used as an aid to compose a list of hazards starting from the 12 Welfare Quality criteria and then make a general list. The general list of hazards can be used to easily make hazard lists for other species. To test this the general list was used to compose lists of hazards for the remaining species. At this moment a general list of hazards and hazard lists are available on: cattle, pigs, broiler breeders, broilers, laying hens, turkeys, geese, ducks, sheep and goats. In WP3, lists of monitoring points to assess animal welfare at farm level were developed, based on the lists of hazards per species that were developed in WP2. By using the output of WP2, the methodology developed in the Welfare Quality project was incorporated. As in the process of the project it was decided to focus more on the methodology of risk assessment and less on the actual risk assessment per species, it was decided not to make lists of monitoring points per species, but produce a report with clarification on monitoring points and some examples how to deal with them. The aim of WP4 is focused on the methodology to do a risk assessment for all involved species. It was agreed to develop directions of how to choose a certain method and what methods are available. WP4 presents clear examples of special issues in risk assessment which should facilitate future discussions in EFSA working groups. Key words: cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, laying hens, broilers, broiler breeders, turkeys, ducks, geese, housing, husbandry, welfare, risk assessment. 2

3 Table of Contents Table of Contents... 3 Background... 4 Terms of reference... 4 Acknowledgments... 5 Institutes involved... 5 Progress of the project... 5 Project management...6 WP1 - Description of main housing and management systems WP2 - Hazard identification and characterisation WP3 - Monitoring points to assess animal welfare at farm level WP4 - Development of a risk assessment methodology

4 Background One of the tasks of the European Food Safety Authority is to promote and coordinate the development of harmonised risk assessment (RA) methodologies in the fields of food and feed safety, nutrition, plant health, plant protection, animal health and animal welfare. Current farming systems found in Europe were developed when there was a need for large quantities of inexpensive food after the wartime shortage and were designed before animal welfare became a major concern. For instance, one of the main findings given by the Eurobarometer survey 2 (EC, 2005) is that over 50% of consumers from across the EU25 are concerned that levels of farm animal welfare are not adequate. To promote high animal welfare standards in current farming systems in relation to housing and management, a clear knowledge of the main risks for animal welfare is required and the most suitable indicators to be monitored on farm have to be identified. Due to the multidimensional nature of animal welfare, housing and management systems shall be compared in view of different welfare indicators. Terms of reference A self mandate was launched by EFSA in September 2007 (EFSA-Q ) to develop the Risk Assessment Guidelines for Animal Welfare, where three main animal welfare issues were identified, namely: Stunning and Killing, Transport, Housing and Management. A harmonised definition of Animal Welfare, including the relationship with Animal Disease, should be also addressed in the framework of this self mandate. The main animal welfare issues (Stunning and Killing, Transport, Housing and Management) are dealt with separately. The deliverables from the different projects will be assembled and evaluated in order to produce the final Risk Assessment Guidelines on Animal Welfare, under the EFSA self mandate framework. In relation to the housing and management of animals bred or kept for production, and in addition to the Council Directive 98/58/EC 3 of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, specific legislation exists laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves 4, pigs 5 and laying hens 6, improving the enforcement of high animal welfare standards in the European Union. The EFSA AHAW Panel has also issued several Scientific Opinions related to the risks of poor welfare in intensive calf farming systems 7, welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor types 8, animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry 9, animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets 10, and welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens

5 Acknowledgements This grant was awarded by EFSA to: Beneficiary: Co-beneficiaries: Grant title: Grant number: ASG Veehouderij b.v. (co-ordinator) Swedish University of Agricultural Science (SLU) Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA) Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) Project to develop Animal Risk Assessment Guidelines on housing and Management EFSA/AHAW/2009/01 Institutes involved PARTNERS ASG Veehouderij bv (ASG) - Netherlands - (co-ordinator) Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) - Sweden Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA) - Spain Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) - Germany SUBCONTRACTORS Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) - Spain Vet School of Lyon (VSL) - France Institute of Veterinary Biomedicine (IVB) - Macedonia Royal Veterinary College (RVC) - UK 5

6 Progress of the project Project management To manage the project by-weekly meetings have been scheduled by the project co-ordinators. In case of questions EFSA was consulted by or by telephone. To facilitate the management of the project, a webtool was made available to store all documents and facilitate discussions. All persons involved in the project have access to this webtool, including EFSA. The webtool comprises the documents of all Work Packages, the discussions regarding the various items and also the information for meetings. As the webtool also has an alert system, it is easy for partners to know when new items have been added. As this tool was developed and used for the Welfare Quality project, a lot of experience has been build up and the tool could be used without any start-up problems. MEETINGS Several meetings have been scheduled. Apart from a Start-up meeting and a final meeting two other interim meetings were held with representatives of all partners. In between meetings frequent contact through and through the webtool ensured a good co-operation between the institutes. 6

7 PAST MEETINGS Date Location Type Agenda Attendencies 11 Dec 09 Telephone conference 16/17 Feb 10 10/11 Jun 10 Lelystad Netherlands Skara Sweden 6 Aug 10 Telephone conference FUTURE MEETINGS Kick-off meeting 1st project meeting 2nd project meeting Progress meeting 1. Welcome and introduction of participants 2. Adoption of the agenda 3. Project review: 4. EFSA involvement and project follow up 5. EFSA follow-up on administrative status and the payment arrangements 6. Miscellaneous 1. Introduction 2. Terms and definitions Risk Assessment 3. WP1 - General comments and issues regarding draft report 4. WP2 - Discussion on hazards and monitoring points. 5. Project management issues 6. Discussion other species (hazards and monitoring points) 7. General remarks, conclusions and outline how to proceed 8. Any other matters 1. Lists of hazards 2. Discussion on tables of interactions of hazards 3. Matters related to other EFSA working groups 4. Monitoring points 5. Risk Assessment 6. Any other business 1. Introduction 2. Progress WP2 3. Progress WP3 4. Progress WP4 5. Timetable 6. Finances 7. Miscellaneous ASG, IRTA, SLU, BfR, EFSA ASG, IRTA, SLU, BfR ASG, IRTA, SLU, BfR, EFSA ASG, SLU, BfR, IRTA, RVC Date Location Type Attendencies 7 Sept 10 Parma Italy final meeting ASG, IRTA, SLU, (BfR), (RVC), EFSA 7

8 DELIVERABLES In the table below the expected deliverables per work package are given as well as information on delivery and delivery dates. Deliverable WP 1: 1. a report with description of main housing and management systems for each animal species, with an indication of the occurrence and distribution throughout Europe WP 2: 2. a list of important hazards per species, their characterisation and their distribution over housing and management systems and regions of Europe 3. a list with hazards that are common in all species and common characterizations WP 3: 4. a list with monitoring points per species, with a clear declaration of the quality of each list. WP 4: 5. a report of animal welfare risk estimates for each animal species and/or housing and management system 6. a discussion of further improvement: trying to adjust the methodology to the specific topic, dealing with expert opinions and discussing problems like interactions, variability and uncertainty Delivered (Y/N) Delivery date Actual/Forcast delivery date Y March 26 April Y 26 April 10 August Y 26 April 10 August Y, no list, but guidelines for monitoring points 26 April 10 August N 30 July examples incorporated in report of next point Y 30 July 10 August 8

9 1 st meeting 1 st interim report 2 nd meeting Draft final report final report EFSA Housing Risk TIME SCHEDULES As there was some delay and some changes in content of the first 3 work packages, the time schedule was slightly modified. For WP1 the time schedule has been extended, for WP2 and WP3 the time schedule has been moved forward. As in WP2 and WP3 already some work will be done for WP4, this last WP will finish in time. MONTH CONTENT OF WP WP1 WP2 Description housing/manage ment Hazard identification and characterisation WP3 WP4 Listing monitoring points and measures Developing risk assessment method FINANCIAL Some changes in the original plans have been made regarding the experts involved. Financially this does not have any consequences as was reported to EFSA through the interim report. A detailed financial report will be submitted separately at the end of the project, in the format provided by EFSA. 9

10 TECHNICAL REPORT submitted to EFSA Animal welfare risk assessment guidelines on housing and management (EFSA Housing Risk) Workpackage 1 (WP1) - Description of main housing and management systems Prepared by Wageningen UR Livestock Research (formerly known as ASG Veehouderij bv) Swedish University of Agricultural Science Institut De Recerca I Tecnologia Agroalimentàries Vet school of Lyon 12 (Question No EFSA-Q ). Accepted for Publication on 15 December

11 Table of Contents Background Terms of reference Acknowledgements Introduction and Objectives Materials and Methods Cattle Description of common husbandry systems in Europe and their specific management Dairy replacement rearing Milk production Main a-specific management procedures A-specific aspects of housing and management Geographical distribution Dairy cattle Beef cattle Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare Pigs Description of common husbandry systems in Europe Breeding Farrowing Rearing Growing and finishing Main a-specific management procedures in Europe A-specific aspects of housing and management Geographical distribution Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare Sows Piglets Growing-Finishing pigs Sheep Description of common husbandry systems in Europe Extensive management systems Intensive management systems Traditional pastoral management systems Main a-specific management procedures in Europe A-specific aspects of housing and management Geographical distribution Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare Extensive systems Intensive systems (dairy sheep) Traditional management systems Goats Description of common husbandry systems in Europe Traditional systems Extensive systems Semi-extensive systems Semi-intensive systems Intensive systems Specific aspects of housing and management Mutilations Climate

12 Nutritional Geographical distribution Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare Laying hens Description of common husbandry systems in Europe and their specific management Rearing Laying period Main a-specific management procedures in Europe A-specific aspects of housing and management Geographical distribution Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare Broilers Description of common husbandry systems in Europe and their specific management Rearing Main a-specific management procedures in Europe A-specific aspects of housing and management Geographical distribution Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare Broiler breeders Description of common husbandry systems in Europe and their specific management Hatchery Rearing (Re)production Main a-specific management procedures in Europe A-specific aspects of housing and management Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare Turkeys Description of common husbandry systems in Europe and their specific management Rearing Main a-specific management procedures in Europe A-specific aspects of housing and management Geographical distribution Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare Ducks Description of common housing systems in Europe and their specific management Pekin ducks Muscovy ducks Mule ducks Main a-specific aspects of housing and management Lighting schedules Feeding Open water for drinking, bathing, and swimming Mutilations Temperature Handling and Human-animal relationship Geographical distribution Breeds Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare Geese Description of common housing systems in Europe and their specific management Main a-specific management procedures in Europe Foie gras production

13 Deplumation Production and geographical distribution Breeds Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare Literature Glossary / Abbreviations

14 Background One of the tasks of the European Food Safety Authority is to promote and coordinate the development of harmonised risk assessment (RA) methodologies in the fields of food and feed safety, nutrition, plant health, plant protection, animal health and animal welfare. Current farming systems found in Europe were developed when there was a need for large quantities of inexpensive food after the wartime shortage and were designed before animal welfare became a major concern. For instance, one of the main findings given by the Eurobarometer survey 14 (EC, 2005) is that over 50% of consumers from across the EU25 are concerned that levels of farm animal welfare are not adequate. To promote high animal welfare standards in current farming systems in relation to housing and management, a clear knowledge of the main risks for animal welfare is required and the most suitable indicators to be monitored on farm have to be identified. Due to the multidimensional nature of animal welfare, housing and management systems shall be compared in view of different welfare indicators. Terms of reference A self mandate was launched by EFSA in September 2007 (EFSA-Q ) to develop the Risk Assessment Guidelines for Animal Welfare, where three main animal welfare issues were identified, namely: Stunning and Killing, Transport, Housing and Management. A harmonised definition of Animal Welfare, including the relationship with Animal Disease, should be also addressed in the framework of this self mandate. The main animal welfare issues (Stunning and Killing, Transport, Housing and Management) are dealt with separately. The deliverables from the different projects will be assembled and evaluated in order to produce the final Risk Assessment Guidelines on Animal Welfare, under the EFSA self mandate framework. In relation to the housing and management of animals bred or kept for production, and in addition to the Council Directive 98/58/EC 15 of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, specific legislation exists laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves 16, pigs 17 and laying hens 18, improving the enforcement of high animal welfare standards in the European Union. The EFSA AHAW Panel has also issued several Scientific Opinions related to the risks of poor welfare in intensive calf farming systems 19, welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor types 20, animal health and welfare in

15 fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry 21, animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets 22, and welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens 23. Acknowledgements This contract/grant was awarded by EFSA to: Contractor/Beneficiary: Co-beneficiaries: ASG Veehouderij b.v. (co-ordinator) Swedish University of Agricultural Science (SLU) Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA) Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) Contract/grant title: Contract/grant number: Project to develop Animal Risk Assessment Guidelines on housing and Management EFSA/AHAW/2009/

16 Introduction and Objectives INTRODUCTION During the last five years, an increasing number of reports from the EFSA AHAW panel have been issued, applying a Risk Assessment (RA) approach on the welfare of different animal species. The RA methodology has been improved successively and has to some extent varied between species and the questions addressed. There is usually some qualitative data or experts opinions which can be transferred into semiquantitative scores available for such measurements but little in the way of quantitative data. The EFSA has already addressed the problems of having no good qualitative measures of animal welfare. In 2007, the AHAW panel stated that to assess animal welfare the adverse consequences should be measured directly on the animals, e.g. lameness in cows. European animal production spans over a wide range of housing and management practices. This variety of production systems will affect the welfare of animals differently. The FP6 funded Welfare Quality project has developed integrated and standardised assessment systems to evaluate and monitor the quality of animals welfare on farms. The awareness that welfare is multidimensional and that its overall assessment requires a multicriteria evaluation resulted in a decision to base the Welfare Quality assessment system on four principles of animal welfare: Good housing, good feeding, good health and appropriate behaviour. Each of these four principles comprises several criteria, with an overall total of 12 criteria. These 12 animal welfare criteria provide a very useful framework for understanding the components of animal welfare. The current project is proposed to define the components of RA related to the welfare of production animals and to provide conclusions and guidelines for future applications using a further developed methodology for this particular purpose. Specifically, the project aims to review the current state of the art regarding housing and management of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and poultry, to identify and characterise potential animal welfare hazards in these species, to describe hazard exposure, to identify relevant monitoring points to assess animal welfare, to evaluate the RA methodology used and to contribute to the development of an efficient and generally applicable methodology of animal welfare RA. This report has been produced for the EFSA project "Animal welfare risk assessment guidelines on housing and management" and is intended to be a basis for further development of risk assessment guidelines that are applicable in this field, independent of the animal species. OBJECTIVES Review of the current state of the art with regards to housing and management of the specified animal species (cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry), both in intensive and extensive housing systems and including breeding animals. Special focus will be on housing and management conditions both on farm level as on European level, taking into account the regional diversity throughout Europe. 16

17 Materials and Methods Information has been collected on the main housing and management systems for cattle (Bos taurus), sheep and goats kept for meat and milk production, pigs, poultry (referring to laying hens, broilers, turkeys, ducks and geese, reared or kept for breeding, production of meat or eggs for consumption). Often different housing and management is applied for rearing animals and (re)producing animals, so per species this distinction has been made. As it would be impossible to describe all possible housing systems, a selection was made of a maximum of 3 housing and management systems per species for rearing and (re)production. Apart from that, regional differences are taken into account and described where relevant. To clarify housing systems, drawings and photos are included in the report. Regional distribution is provided in number of animals per EU-country. The report is build up by chapters per species. By using the same headings the structure per chapter and thus per species is similar. The various chapters are written by SLU (cattle), IRTA (pigs, sheep, goats), ASG (poultry). Subcontractors have supplied information on ducks and geese (Vet School Lyon) and situation in Eastern Europe (Institute of Veterinary Biomedicine in Skopje). The situation in Northern, Southern and Western Europe for the various species was covered by SLU, IRTA and ASG. The assembling of the chapters was done by ASG. Various scientific sources of information have been used. Main sources were previous AHAW and SCAHAW opinions, peer reviewed literature, proceedings of scientific meetings and scientific reports. Where no information was available, experts have been consulted. Literature lists of each species are combined to one general list, that is provided at the end. Also the glossery/abbreviation lists for all species have been combined to one and added at the end of the report. 17

18 1. Cattle 1.1. Description of common husbandry systems in Europe and their specific management In 2007, Europe had million head of cattle, of which 41.1 million dairy cows and approximately 14 million beef cows (Eurostat, 2009; FAOSTAT, 2009). A total of 46.0 million cattle were slaughtered, resulting in 11.1 million tonnes of meat (carcass weight), and million tonnes of cow milk was produced (FAO, 2009). Thirteen countries accounted for more than 80% of the European dairy cow, beef cow and total cattle populations, and 83% of the European cattle slaughtered were slaughtered in these countries: Belarus, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and UK. Ukraine and Turkey have by far most dairy holdings (2.3 and 1.1 million, respectively) but their herds are very small (mean 1 and 4 cows, respectively) (International Farm Comparison Network, 2009). Basically, cattle can be kept indoors, or outdoors feeding (grazing or being fed) or exercising. Housing can be used because land conditions do not allow grazing, to allow for structured feeding under controlled management conditions, or to protect animals from adverse weather conditions. During the grazing period, animals can sometimes choose between being indoors or at pasture. Dairy cows can be kept indoors during part of the day. A number of housing options are available. When housed indoors dairy cattle can be loose, tied or confined to group or single pens or crates. Loose animals are kept in groups in straw yards (deep packs) or cubicle systems. Husbandry might vary considerably between different stages in the productive cycle, keeping for instance dry and lactating cows separately. In cold climates, housing facilities can be cold (uninsulated), temperate (partly insulated) or warm (insulated). Floors can be solid or slatted, with varying amounts of litter. Herd size spans from a few individuals to thousands of head, which relates to differences in e.g. grouping, feeding, reproductive management, calving and milking. Furthermore, breeding, housing, feed composition, grazing practices, production strategy and production levels vary between regions, due to differences in geography, climate, tradition and legislation. Grazing is usually seasonal, depending on climatic conditions, but is sometimes practised all year round. Some cattle are kept indoors all year round (zerograzing). Variations in husbandry are seen in all cattle categories, both replacements, adult dairy cattle and beef cattle. In short, cattle husbandry varies between European countries and regions in a number of ways, almost on a farm-to-farm basis. The practice of organic production puts further constraints on certain husbandry aspects related to animal welfare, especially regarding freedom of movement, lying comfort, outdoor exercise or grazing, forage feeding, cow-calf separation and preventive use of antibiotics and antiparasitic drugs. Regulations for specific types of organic certification to some extent vary between countries Dairy replacement rearing Dairy herds are generally closed, implying that replacements are reared at the farm operation where they later calve and produce milk. To a small extent, milk producers purchase all replacements as pregnant heifers, freshly calved heifers, or even milking cows (so-called 18

19 flying herds). This means that the husbandry of replacement calves and heifers is much related to the husbandry of adult animals. Literature on existing housing and management practices of dairy replacement heifers is scarce. Replacement calves are most commonly kept in individual pens (Figure 1.1) until weaning or raised in small groups of animals (usually less than 15). In rare cases, calves are let out on pasture. Replacement heifers can be kept on pasture (grazing in summer) or housed indoors until calving. They can be housed in group pens (with littered solid or slatted flooring), tethered in stalls or loose-housed in deep pack or cubicle systems (Figure 1.2), much like the ones described below for dairy cows. Deep packs can be placed on sloped (8-10%) floors, causing the bedding to slide gradually while new litter material is provided mostly at the top side of the pack and removed daily at the bottom side. An animal is often moved several times between different housing systems before entering the cow herd. Housing systems and management practices vary greatly between countries. It therefore appears difficult to classify the husbandry of dairy replacement animals in a few categories. Figure 1.1. Individual baby calf pens; Sweden (photo: Catarina Svensson). 19

20 Figure 1.2. Replacement heifers in a cubicle system with solid walkways; Sweden (photo: Catarina Svensson) Milk production Dairy herds range from 1 to 2,000 cows (International Farm Comparison Network, 2009). EFSA (2009c) identified four different dairy cow husbandry systems in the EU: cubicle housing, tie-stall housing, straw yards and pasture. However, because the extent to which cows are grazed varies gradually from one extreme to the other, pasture seems less suitable as a separate husbandry class in this context. Moreover, the three identified housing categories do not reflect the great variability in housing and in hazard exposure. In an annexed report, EFSA (2009a) instead adopted the general classification of settled livestock production of Norton et al. (2006): mixed farming (integration of crops and livestock), intensive livestock systems and extensive livestock systems (including a variety of grazing systems), added organic farming as a fourth category, and applied these categories to dairy cattle specifically. The Centre for European Agricultural Studies (CEAS, 2000) chose a similar approach, classifying EU dairy production from an economic and technical perspective into four categories: high input/output, low input/output, mountain and Mediterranean. The CEAS and latter EFSA classifications appear similar; intensive dairying is probably realised on high input/output farms and extensive systems are likely to be low input/output. Although organic milk production is always land-based and will be incompatible with some aspects of intensive production, it can be applied in all four CEAS categories. Therefore, in the following sections, the CEAS approach has been adopted as far as possible, also including other European countries and adjusting for changes after Due to unfavourable climatic conditions, lack of grass or other forage, or poor conditions of the sward, European dairy cattle are kept indoors for the main part of the year, roughly 5-7 months, during the winter season. The length of the housing period differs between regions in Europe, with variations in climatic condition as the primary reason. In addition, dairy cows are likely to be indoors during a part of the day in the summer season. This is because of 20

21 milking, water supply, supplementary feeding or even protection against extreme weather such as hot sunshine or heavy rainfall High intensity system These systems are characterised by having relatively large herds on average (Table 1.1), albeit substantial regional variations. In 2008, the Czech Republic reported the largest herds of all European countries (162 cows), followed by Denmark (116 cows) and UK (112 cows) (International Farm Comparison Network, 2009). Dairy herds of several thousand cows exist today in a number of countries. Belarus, although having a mean herd size of 17 cows, had most of its cows in herds >800 cows (International Farm Comparison Network, 2009). Available data for the 13 major dairy countries in 2008 (International Farm Comparison Network, 2009) revealed that the UK had the largest herds on average (112 cows), followed by the Netherlands (71 cows) and Ireland (56 cows). German production is also fairly large scale. France, Italy and Spain all have a greater proportion of dairy cows than holdings, implying a relatively high level of intensity (CEAS, 2000). Grass and corn silage, cereals and protein concentrates are commonly used and usually fed to milk yield. Winter forage tends to consist predominantly of whole crop corn silage, although grass silage is used in northern parts where the climate is not suited to growing corn. Winter feed is supplemented with products such as wet beet pulp and brewers grains (draff). Calving tends be all year round with a slight seasonal concentration in spring in certain countries, such as the Netherlands, in order to maximise the use of peak grass growth in spring and to match peak milk production to the highest milk price. More northerly countries like Finland and Sweden have a slight bias towards autumn calving (August to November). Variability in calving by location is significant even within zones, regions or countries (CEAS, 2000). Milking is usually carried out twice daily, but three milkings are sometimes practised when labour is affordable. Automatic (voluntary, robotic) milking is applied in a limited number of medium-sized herds (usually cows), predominantly in the Netherlands and Denmark. Cows are housed in the winter months and in certain cases may be housed overnight in autumn and spring. The harsher the climatic conditions, the longer is the winter housing period. In Norway, Finland and Sweden the period spent housed is between eight and ten months (depending on latitude), but is constrained beyond this by animal welfare legislation which stipulates a minimum outdoor grazing period. In southern Europe and in parts of Eastern Europe cows are quite often permanently housed (zerograzing). Specialist dairy breeds dominate, of which Friesians/Holsteins are the most important (e.g., British Friesian, French Prim Holstein, Dutch Holstein). As an effect of international trade, Dutch and American Holstein has a strong influence in some countries. Average herd age tends to be low which implies a relatively high replacement rate (CEAS, 2000). 21

22 Table 1.1. Typical high intensity system (CEAS, 2000). Production parameter Calving season Feed strategy Milking frequency Size Indoor/outdoor Replacement strategy Breed Typical option All year round with a bias toward spring or autumn depending on the climate High use of concentrates Buffer feeding used to allow higher stocking densities High use of silage for winter feed (usually corn, but grass in northern parts) Usually twice daily, rarely three times or automatic Medium to large herds, often specialised Indoor over winter, longer periods of housing in the north Generally closed herds, flying herds Specialist dairy, usually bred for high milk yield High intensity systems for dairy cows can be classified further as tie-stall or loose housing. From 2011, all dairy cows on organic farms in EU must be kept in some kind of loose housing. Tie-stall system The tie-stall or stanchion barn was by far the most common type of dairy cow husbandry system until loose housing was introduced in the Today the share of tie-stalls in dairy farming is low, although there are exceptions. The cows are tied in a stall, using it for lying, eating, drinking, usually milking and sometimes also calving (Figures ). In a cowshed there are one or more rows of stalls available, with all equipments and installations around for an efficient and rational management (Maton et al., 1985). Dimensions of the stalls are related to the anatomical measures of the cow and the ease of labour for the stockman. The feed is provided in a manger in front of the stall, with the bottom at least 5 cm above the stall floor. A drinker is available in the front, often shared between two adjacent cows. Behind the cows is a dung plate or a swallow channel (sometimes covered by a metal grid) for collecting the faeces and urine. Next to that is the service passage used by the stockman for milking the cows, for cow observations and for cleaning. Milking is usually mechanical and the milker moves the milking equipment between stalls, attaching it to a vacuum line, a milk line (or a portable milk container) and to the cows. In small herds in some parts of Europe, cows are milked manually. 22

23 Figure 1.3. Tie-stalls (short-stalls) (with permission from DeLaval International AB). Figure 1.4. Tie-stalls (short-stalls) with a neck rail; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren). 23

24 Figure 1.5. Tie-stalls (short-stalls) with an adjustable front and computerised concentrate feeding; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren). While the housing principle is still the same, the tie-stall barn has undergone many adjustments over time. Systems of tying the cows to their stalls with a vertical chain and nylon strap or a chain with collar have been common and still exist in some areas, but later techniques were applied for automatic de-attachment so that the cows could move to a separate milking parlour or, if required, to a paddock outside. The tethering in a tie-stall barn restricts the freedom of movement of the cows, which are almost completely deprived of exercise. Dependent on the tying system they are also to some extent prevented from grooming and they lack freedom of motion in standing up and lying down. Tied cows do not have to compete for food and are largely protected from aggression from herd mates in a crowded environment, but subdominant individuals are unable to move away from dominant animals. In tie-stall barns, cows are easy to monitor and offer individual care when needed. In Northern Europe a separate type of tie-stalls exist, called long-stalls, in contrast to other tie-stalls which are then called short-stalls. In long-stalls, the cows can be locked out from the manger or feeding platform by a gate (Figure 1.6). The use of the gates is coordinated with the labour in the cowshed and with cow behaviour. Starting with the cows locked out and lying in their stalls, the caretaker feed the cows (usually done at the end of the previous shift) and opens the gates, allowing the cows to enter the gate with their heads and start eating. Meanwhile, the caretaker cleans the stalls, provide new litter material and milk the cows in their stalls. When feed is consumed and milking is finished, the cows back out and lie down again. The caretaker locks the gates until next milking. Because the cows must be able to lie down and get up in the stall area outside the feeding platform, a long-stall must be longer (approximately 50 cm) than the ordinary tie-stall (short-stall). The bottom of the manger is usually placed higher than in ordinary tie-stalls (20-50 cm vs cm). 24

25 Figure 1.6. Long-stalls; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren). Cubicle system Loose housing of cows in cubicle barns is presently the most common housing in intensive dairy farming. The cubicle system focuses both on saving labour and on the increase of production, developed as part of a process of rationalisation and intensification of dairy production. The cows move themselves to the necessary commodities and facilities in the system, so that a substantial step in mechanisation and automation is made. Indeed, an increase in herd size with a minimum of labour input was the result when cubicles were introduced in the The cubicle house consists of a number of specific facilities (e.g. Maton et al., 1985; CIGR, 1994) (Figures ). 25

26 Figure 1.7. Three-row cubicle system with a 2x10 parallel milking parlour (with permission from DeLaval International AB). Figure 1.8. Three-row cubicle system with scraped solid walkways, concentrate stations and an automatic milking station (with permission from DeLaval International AB). 26

27 The cubicles or free-stalls for lying and resting are arranged in one or more rows within the available building space. Each cubicle is a rectangle floor area made of concrete (or soil, in some instances), usually covered with a rubber mat, a mattress or bedding material. Various alternatives of cubicle flooring exist and/or are still under development, but in all cases the aim is to provide the cow with a stable, even and somewhat soft lying surface for comfortable resting. Cubicles are around 1.15 to 1.25 m wide and separated from each other by a metal, wooden or textile framework that also guide the cows movements (Figures ). The type of partition has undergone many changes in the course of time, with the aim to allow cows maximum freedom of motion within the available space. The cubicle length is around m, but rails in the front of the cubicle can restrict the actual space of the cow. According to recommendations and legislation, there should be at least as many cubicles as cows but, in practice, higher rates of occupation are often applied, especially when roughage is fed ad libitum. If cubicles are also used for feeding, they are called feeding cubicles (Figures ), which is a less common housing system, applied e.g. when a tie-stall system is restructured and the old feeding platform and stalls are kept intact while a new milking parlour is constructed. Figure 1.9. Three-row cubicle system with slatted walkways in a naturally ventilated building; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren). 27

28 Figure Cubicles equipped with mattresses and littered with sawdust; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren). Figure Feeding cubicles (with permission from DeLaval International AB). 28

29 Figure Feeding cubicles; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren). The floor in walking areas of a loose-housing system has two main functions, it is the area where cows stand and perform most locomotive, social, sexual, eliminative and grooming behaviours, and it provides a means for collecting manure. In a cubicle system, walkways are usually located between cubicle rows and along the feeding platform (typically two main walkways in a system with three cubicle rows). The walkway floor is usually made of concrete presumably because of its durability, low cost and ease of cleaning and it can be either solid or slatted. To offer a more yielding and comfortable surface, both solid and slatted floors can be coated with e.g. rubber (Figures ) or, less frequently, mastic asphalt. Deep pack system The deep pack or straw-yard system (Figure 1.15) is a less common housing system for European dairy cows. In the original concept described by Maton et al. (1985), a concrete area is situated m under the level of the feeding passage and is littered daily. A litter and manure pack is thus allowed to develop and is removed one or two times per year. Feeding can be arranged in the resting area, but a feeding platform along a solid scraped walkway adjacent to the resting area is more common. Farms can also have a confined concrete outdoor area for exercise. The deep pack system requires good management, especially regarding the maintenance of the pack by regular provision of straw (around 5-15 kg per cow and day). 29

30 Figure Rubber-coated solid walkway in a cubicle system; Sweden (photo: Christer Bergsten). Figure Rubber-covered slatted floor (photo: Evgenij Telezhenko). 30

31 Figure Deep-pack system; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren) Low intensity system Herds are generally somewhat smaller than in high intensity systems (Table 1.2). Mean dairy herd size spans from 56 cows in Ireland to 1 cow in Albania and Ukraine, 2 cows in Romania and Serbia, 3 cows in Bulgaria and Macedonia, and 4 in Turkey (International Farm Comparison Network, 2009). These systems include some specialist dairy farms and organic producers but mainly comprise mixed farms in which other livestock activities are practised. Less than 30% of farmed land tends to be used for forage (mix of cereals and brassicas), with the rest being permanent grassland. Grazing is an important part of the feeding regime with use of concentrates not usually higher than 500 kg/cow (CEAS, 2000). Winter diets tend to comprise a mix of grass or corn silage and hay and the summer diet is dominated by grazing. Calving practices do not differ significantly from high intensity systems. The increased reliance on grazing means that calving takes place to take maximum advantage of the peak grass production period. As such, spring calving dominates in Ireland, but autumn calving is preferred in Normandy/Brittany regions of France. Housing patterns are similar to the more intensive systems whereby cows are housed in the winter months (which tend to be longer in the more northerly regions practising these systems). Average winter housing periods are mid-october to mid-march (CEAS, 2000). Average herd age and replacement rates are similar to more intensive systems, although on mixed livestock farms cows tend to be kept longer (an extra year or two). Breeds are similar to high input systems where specialist dairy breeds like Friesian/Holstein dominate. Additional use of Jerseys and Guernseys may occur in organic systems. 31

32 Table 1.2. Typical low intensity system (CEAS, 2000). Production parameter Calving season Feed strategy Milking frequency Size Indoor/outdoor Replacement strategy Breed Typical option Spring to maximise use of peak grass growth in mountains, autumn in uplands/foothills Low use of concentrates and silage Silage over winter Twice daily Medium-sized herds, mix of specialised dairy and mixed livestock farms Indoor for around five months over winter Generally closed herds, some flying herds Specialist dairy Mountain system In the mountain regions, farms comprise two units (valley and mountain pastures) with typical sizes being ha of valley and 200 ha mountain pasture. For the upland and foothill farms average size is ha. Herd sizes are typically small to medium (Table 1.3), ranging from 10 to 200 cows (average of 50) in mountain areas. In the upland and foothill regions average herd size is cows (20-30 in the Black Forest) (CEAS, 2000). In 2007, the mean herd size of Switzerland was 17 head and of Austria 11 (Eurostat, 2009; Swiss Federal Statistical Office, 2009). Pasture grazing dominates with limited use of forage in mountain farms (hay taken from valley pastures for winter feeding). Grassland also dominates in upland/foothill farms (80-100%) of the farm area. Grazing is the most important part of the feeding regime. In mountain farms, winter feeding is largely based on hay with concentrates limited to cows producing milk for cheese making. In upland/foothill farms some limited supplementary feeding at grass occurs ( kg DM hay or silage but up to 500 kg in some hay based systems). Winter feeding is similar to mountain farms but with additional use of silage and hay (CEAS, 2000). Spring calving dominates in mountain farms while autumn calving (September-December) dominates in uplands/foothills to benefit from availability of winter fodder and seasonally higher liquid milk prices at this time of year. Mountain systems are based on winter housing (October-May) and summer grazing. Similar patterns occur in the uplands/foothills, but with slightly shorter winter housing and longer summer grazing (6 months) (CEAS, 2000). Zerograzing is practised in areas where natural pastures are scarce or not easily accessed. Average herd age and replacement rates are probably longer than more intensive systems (an extra year or two). Local/regional mountain breeds adapted to harsh and cold conditions (e.g., Grey Alpine) are mainly used in mountain farms. In the foothill/upland farms, Friesian/Holsteins are common on the more intensive farms although red and white breeds and some local breeds remain widely used on farms in regions like Tarin, Hintervald and Eringer (CEAS, 2000). Table 1.3. Typical mountain system (CEAS, 2000). 32

33 Production parameter Calving season Feed strategy Milking frequency Size Indoor/outdoor Replacement strategy Breed Typical option Winter while in valleys Low use of concentrates Zerograzing often used where plots of land are fragmented Hay used for winter feed Twice daily Small to medium-sized herds Indoor over winter in valleys Closed herds Dual purpose Mediterranean system The vast majority of Mediterranean region holdings are small, although herd sizes fall within a broad range, up to approximately 60 head (Table 1.4) (around 10 on mixed livestock farms, around on more commercial dairy operations). Average farm size is largest in Cyprus and Mediterranean France, and probably smallest in Turkey (CEAS, 2000; Eurostat, 2009; International Farm Comparison Network, 2009). Feed in commercial farms comprises a mix of farm grown roughage (a mix of corn and ryegrass silage and alfalfa hay). On mixed farms, grazing is practised for 3-4 months per year in the spring with feed for the non-grazing seasons derived from traditional polyculture systems (mix of tree crops, vegetables and cereals). On the commercial dairy farms there is widespread use of irrigated corn silage and dry-land ryegrass growing which is cut 2-3 times per year. Zerograzing is practised in areas where pasture is scarce and on commercial farms. On mixed farms, housing facilities tend to be much more basic than in the more commercial systems, including widespread use of hand milking (CEAS, 2000). Outdoor exercise in drylots is practised in some countries, e.g. Spain, Italy and Turkey (Figure 1.16). Figure Dairy cows exercised in a dry-lot; Turkey (with permission from DeLaval International AB). 33

34 Table 1.4. Typical Mediterranean system (CEAS, 2000). Production parameter Calving season Feed strategy Milking frequency Size Indoor/outdoor Replacement strategy Breed Typical option All year round Increasing use of concentrates and other supplementary feed Rough grazing predominates Use of silage or hay uncommon Twice daily, sometimes by hand Small herds Indoor over summer when grazing options are limited Indoor all year round on specialist dairy farms Generally closed herds Friesian/Holstein and some mix of hardy local breeds Calving practices do not differ significantly from high intensity systems on the commercial farms (a broad mix of spring or autumn calving depending on local circumstance and preference). All year round calving also occurs in the mixed systems. Average herd age and replacement rates are similar to more intensive systems in northern regions. On mixed livestock farms, cows tend to be kept longer (an extra year or two) (CEAS, 2000). Like in high input systems, specialist dairy breeds such as Friesian/Holstein dominate, although other breeds are also popular in certain countries, for example, Simmental and Brown Swiss in Greece. On the mixed farms both Holsteins and local multipurpose breeds are used plus some cross breeding with Limousin and Charolais (CEAS, 2000). In 1995, average milk yield was just below 5,000 kg/cow-year (Eurostat). There is a high degree of variation in average milk yield between countries. Low yields are found in Mediterranean France and higher yields in Mediterranean Spain (CEAS, 2000) Beef production A large proportion of the offspring (mainly bull calves) of the European dairy cows are destined for beef fattening. These calves are usually separated from their mothers at 1-2 days of age and artificially reared on milk or milk replacer plus solid food for a 6-9-week period, after which they are weaned and subsequently reared on forages (grass, silage, hay or straw) or on forages plus concentrates. Likewise, a large proportion of the offspring of the beef suckler cows are also destined for fattening. Calves of suckler cows remain with their mother for 6-9 months, when they are weaned and then reared further, again on forages or forages plus concentrates. The production of beef thus relies on calves of both dairy cows and beef suckler cows. The European beef industry is diverse because the end product varies by cattle breed, type of feeding and age at slaughter. Beef fattening systems can be divided into two main categories: intensive indoor systems and grass-based systems. Intensive indoor systems can be divided further into veal calf rearing and other intensive rearing-fattening units. As for dairy cattle, the 34

35 type of diet applied is related to climatic conditions and to the cattle breeds. The latter can be dairy (milk primary output, beef secondary), dual purpose (producing milk and beef) or beef (beef primary output). Beef breeds comprise late-maturing breeds such as Charolais, Limousin and Blonde d aquitaine dominating in France, Angus, Hereford, French breeds and crosses with dairy breeds in UK and Ireland, and local rustic breeds in Spain and Portugal. Beef farming systems have been characterised from an economical efficiency perspective by the EAAP Cattle Network Working Group, and EU operations were classified accordingly by so-called Farm Accountancy Data Network data collected from 74,000 commercial farms in 2004 (Sarzeaud at el., 2008), as: small farms (<5 suckler cows, <5 dairy cows), dairy and beef farms (>5 dairy cows), cow-calf farms (>5 suckler cows) or finishing farms. The European Commission (2001) presented nine production system categories based on the type of final product: 16-month-old dairy bulls fed grass silage and concentrates, 16-month-old dairy bulls fed corn silage and concentrates, 12-month-old dairy bulls fed a cereal based diet, 16-monthold suckler bulls fed grass silage and concentrates, month-old suckler bulls fed corn silage and concentrates, month-old bulls suckler bulls fed a cereal based diet, 2-yearold dairy steers, 2-year-old suckler steers, and 2.5-year-old steers and heifers. None of these classification systems is fully suitable for classification from an animal welfare risk perspective. Veal production can thus be identified as a separate farming systems, due to the specific conditions involved and the strong animal welfare concerns expressed since long. In the following sections, beef farms were classified as: veal production, intensive indoor rearing and fattening, and extensive grass-based rearing and fattening. The activity of cow-calf farms is based on calf production from a suckler cow herd. Cow-calf farms represent a third of the bovine farms and control the majority of the suckler cows in EU (Sarzeaud et al., 2008). Small livestock farms (less than five beef cows and less than five dairy cows) represent 10% of the European bovine farms, but they control only 1% of the livestock units (Sarzeaud et al., 2008). Most of the beef farms are pure cow-calf producers, representing 19% of the European bovine owners. A considerable part of the cow-calf producers fatten the majority of the progeny as suckler calves, bulls, heifers or steers on their farms. These herds are generally larger than at the pure cow-calf farms. These producers represent 7% of the European bovine farms (Sarzeaud et al., 2008). Thirteen percent of the European bovine farms are involved simultaneously in dairy and beef production, for instance steer and heifer rearing on pastures in Ireland and UK combined with dairy production (Sarzeaud et al., 2008). These systems represent one quarter of the beef producers. Combined cow-calf and sheep producers are of a relatively low intensity of management. They represent 5% of the European bovine farms. Housing alternatives for beef cattle are basically the same as for dairy cattle. Tie-stalls are most common in small units. Cubicle housing is an expensive alternative and therefore less common. Consequently, group housing on slatted or littered floors is most common Veal production Veal is meat from calves, usually defined as cattle less than 6 months of age. Depending on feeding regimes and age of slaughter, European veal can be divided into milk-fed (formulafed, white) veal, grain-fed (non-formula-fed, red or rosé) veal and free-raised veal. Most veal comes from male calves of dairy breeds, as a by-product of the dairy industry. The production 35

36 of white veal is based on a tradition of fattening calves on a milk diet, which is naturally poor in iron, and slaughtering them at a low age. Nowadays most veal calves are fed milk replacers with a restricted iron content. This results in relatively low blood haemoglobin levels. Some veal calves are still fed raw milk. In case of dairy breeds, the cows are generally milked and the calves are fed in buckets. In case of beef breeds, the calves feed from their dam or from another cow twice a day. Milk-fed veal calves are raised solely on a nutritionally complete milk formula supplement, and are usually slaughtered at weeks of age. Grain-fed veal calves are raised on grain, hay or other solid food after weaning, and are usually marketed as calves at weeks of age (UK rosé veal at 35 weeks). Free-raised veal calves are grazed together with the dam and slaughtered at weeks of age. The calves can be kept individually or in groups. After separation from the dam, milk-fed and grain-fed veal calves are housed in hutches, pens or stalls. According to EU legislation calves should receive sufficient iron to ensure a minimum level of blood haemoglobin and calves over two weeks old should be provided daily with some fibrous feed which should increase from 50 to a minimum of 250 grams per day from the beginning to the end of the fattening period. The type of solid feed given to veal calves differ somewhat between countries. In France and Italy solid feeds for veal calves usually consist of chopped straw or pelleted dry feed consisting of both fibrous (e.g. straw) and concentrate-like (e.g. cereal) materials. In the Netherlands, corn silage is a popular roughage source. In 2007 EU banned individual housing of veal calves in crates during fattening, and their use is decreasing gradually also in other countries. Instead, after 6-8 weeks of individual housing, veal calves are housed in small groups and fed in troughs or buckets or in large groups (40-80 calves) and feed by an automatic milk feeder. Group pens can have a wooden or concrete slatted floor, rubber mats or straw bedding Intensive indoor rearing and fattening Intensive indoor rearing and fattening (excluding veal production) can take place on cow-calf farms or on farms specialised in finishing. Both these types of farming also include extensive grass-based systems. Intensive indoor rearing and fattening usually take place in group pens with slatted floors or straw bedding (Figures ). Farms are mostly medium-sized and mainly bulls and heifers are produced. Feed is to some extent purchased and in most countries consists of at least 30% silage and other forages. On feed-lot farms, more than 50% can be grains and other energy feed. 36

37 Figure Beef bull fattening; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren). Figure Fattening bulls in littered group pens with scraped walkways at feeding front; Sweden (with permission from agri benchmark Beef Network). 37

38 Figure Beef bull fattening; Spain (with permission from agri benchmark Beef Network). Figure Beef bull fattening in a cubicle system with scraped walkways; Sweden (photo: Terhi Alanko). Farms specialised in finishing are relatively few in number. They were classified by Sarzeaud et al. (2008) as: farms specialised in bull fattening, medium-sized farms of fatteners (less than 50 young males produced) without calf production, or combined beef and sheep farms (more than 50 young males produced). Medium-sized herds are the major category and most of them are rather small fatteners of young bulls with corn silage and concentrates. However, in 38

39 Ireland and Britain, these systems represent the main European producers of steers on permanent pastures. Specialised fattening represent 9% of the European bovine farms (Sarzeaud et al., 2008). Intensively reared steers and heifers in large herds ( ,000 head) in e.g. Italy and Spain can be kept and fed in confined outdoor pens with partial sun-shelters and without vegetation, so called dry-lots (Figure 1.21). Figure Fattening bulls in dry-lots; Spain (with permission from agri benchmark Beef Network) Extensive grass-based rearing and fattening Extensive grass-based systems rely on grazing (Figures 22-24), but can involve winter indoor accommodation or simple shelters (roofs or windbreaks; Figure 25). These farms vary from small to large and produce mainly steers and heifers on grasslands (Sarzeaud et al., 2008). Extensive cow-calf farms produce weaners or backgrounders sold to fatteners. Their herds are relatively small with less than 35 suckler cows (Sarzeaud et al., 2008). The feed consists of at least 30% pasture and almost no feed is purchased. 39

40 Figure Beef cow-calf rearing on pasture; Hungary (with permission from agri benchmark Beef Network). Figure Outdoor beef suckler cow rearing in winter; Czech Republic (with permission from agri benchmark Beef Network). Figure Beef cow-calf rearing on marginal pastures; Spain (with permission from agri benchmark Beef Network). 40

41 Figure Roof shelter for extensively reared beef cattle; Sweden (photo: Bengt-Ove Rustas) Main a-specific management procedures A-specific aspects of housing and management Quality assurance and certification Producers can enrol, voluntarily or by obligation, in quality assurance and animal health control programmes organised by producer organisations, the food industry or authorities, and sometimes audited by independent and accredited parties. Quality control can be aimed to promote marketing and profitability, to secure animal health and food safety, or to facilitate official control of animal health and welfare. Examples of quality assurance programmes in cattle production are seen in many countries (e.g. Hultgren, 2009). Organic certification implies constraints on e.g. freedom of movement, lying comfort, outdoor exercise or grazing, forage feeding, cow-calf separation and preventive use of antibiotics and antiparasitic drugs. Within Europe, organic farming accounts only for a few percent of dairy production, with an upward trend in at least some countries. With increasing herd sizes, involving employed staff and a high degree of automation of animal care and supervision, there is a growing need for standardised practices and documentation to increase clarity, avoid fatal housing and management mistakes and secure animal welfare and production Climate, light and sound The maintenance of a comfortable indoor climate with respect to temperature, humidity, noxious gases (ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide) and protection from draught is an important part of cattle management. Optimum ambient temperature for dairy cows is 0-15 C and optimum relative humidity 50-80%. In middle-sized and large cowsheds, climatisation 41

42 is usually partly or fully automatic. Ventilation is based on either natural forces (Figure 1.26) or fans. Electric fans and other machinery are usually equipped with noise protection. Light is usually provided also at night, to facilitate cow movements and reduce the risk of injuries. In cold or hot climate, outdoor shelters are used to protect from sunlight, precipitation and wind. Figure Wall curtain for flexible ventilation in a cubicle system; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren) Human-animal relationship In middle-sized and large dairy units, management procedures are to a large extent automatic. Ventilation is regulated electronically by sensors, fans and air inlets and outlets regulated by a central computer. Dung removal and scraping of walkways is usually automatic. Feeding is often automatic, especially concentrate feeding which can be computerised through transponder-controlled feeding stations or through rail wagons. Cubicles can be littered semiautomatically. In most herds, the cows are milked mechanically, and the degree of automation varies from machine milking in buckets to fully automatic robotic milking. Dairy cows can be identified electronically at feeding and milking, and in intelligent gates, and automatic activity recording can be used for oestrus and lameness detection. Video technique can be used for visual monitoring of the herd. The time that caretakers spend in handling and caring for animals is considerably shorter in large herds than in small ones. The need for individual handling and the degree of automation is generally much lower in beef cattle than in dairy cattle. The form and effect of human-animal interactions depends partly on the size of the herds. In small and family run dairy farms a very close relationship is usually found between stockpersons and animals, starting from birth. As farms increase in size, human proximity and contact may be limited to feeding and milking times, if even that. In large herds there is an 42

43 increased probability of frequent personnel changes and/or a higher number of different milkers. Large operations need employed staff to manage the herd, transforming cattle husbandry into a more business-oriented activity, focused on production efficiency. The quantity and quality of human-animal contact with animals on cattle farms also differ according to the system of production; close contact with humans in tie stalls is much more frequent than in cubicle or pasture systems. Especially in beef production, where animals are less often handled individually, on-farm facilities are needed for handling animals at veterinary examination, treatments, weighing, loading for transport and possibly slaughter. The layout of the handling facility will depend on the type animals, existing doors, gates, roads, etc. At the end of a race, a chute or crush can be located for restraint of individual animals Feeding and nutrition The diet of cattle consists mainly of carbohydrates (>70%) from fibre hemicelluloses, celluloses and lignin, and non-fibre cell storage constituents (sugar and starch). Feeds are offered either fresh or, more commonly, preserved either by drying or as silage. Silage is the result of controlled anaerobic fermentation of high moisture herbage. During fermentation lactic, acetic and butyric acids are produced, resulting in lowered ph. Feeding is inherently related to grazing practices, housing conditions, animal grouping and milking routines. Forages and roughages are feed stuffs with a high proportion of neutral detergent fibre. Forages can be divided in legumes and grasses. Legumes store also relatively high amounts of protein, in particular in their leaves, and can be a good source of vitamins. Grasses have a wider geographical range than legumes, they have a higher tolerance for humid and cold weather as well as poor soil, and they can persist and maintain production with a low management level. Wheat and oats is used infrequently for production of cereal forages. Oat, barley and wheat straw are used to a small extent as high fibre roughages. Roughage can be fed ad libitum or restrictively, while concentrates are given according to production level. Roughage is usually provided at a feeding platform, sometimes equipped with a manger, along one side of a section (often through the centre of the building with sections on both sides). The design of the feeding fence varies from a simple neck rail to lockable gates to facilitate handling and treatment (Figure 1.27). In dairy herds, separate feeding stalls are sometimes used, raised over the walkway behind them and divided by bars (Figure 1.28). The feeding space is around cm per cow, depending on cow size and feeding fence design. If roughage is fed ad libitum, the feeding space can be reduced (down to one space per three cows), because the cows eat at any hour of the day. Because roughage is given along one side of a section, the number of cubicle rows per section is related to the available space at the feeding platform; the more cubicle rows, the less feeding space. In modern cubicle systems for dairy cows, three or four rows are usual. The feed supply at the platform is often mechanised and often even completely automated. Farmers can alternatively supply the roughage by a system of self-feeding outdoors. The cows eat the feed (commonly silage) directly from the feed storage outside the barn, through a movable fence. 43

44 Figure Two different feeding front designs in loose housing (with permission from DeLaval International AB). Figure Feeding stalls in a cubicle system for dairy cows (photo: Jan Hultgren). Concentrates are feed stuffs rich in non-fibre storage carbohydrates (sugar and starch); their high energy content can be due to highly digestible fibre (e.g. beet and citrus pulps, milling by-products), which are also rich in pectin. Concentrates can also be rich in protein (protein concentrates, >20% crude protein of plant or animal origin) or in protein and fats (e.g. oil seeds: whole cotton seeds, whole soybean seeds). Other by-product energy sources are almond hulls, apple pomace, citrus pulp, cocoa meal, dried bakery, beet pulp, brewers and distillers grain. Protein concentrates are derived from oil seeds (soybean meal, canola meal, sunflower meal, flax cake, cotton meal) or can be legume seed (faba bean, peas). Some cereal by-products can be rich in protein (e.g. brewers dried grains, corn gluten meal, wheat or corn germ meal). Some non-protein sources of nitrogen are also used (urea, ammonia salts). Feed proteins can be characterised according to their rumen degradability (entity and rate) and, for the undegradable part, for their digestibility and aminoacid composition. Feed supplements consist of minerals, vitamins and sometimes extra fat. In continental Europe corn production has spread rapidly northwards with the development of early maturing varieties. Producers have thus developed corn silage systems for both dairy and beef cattle. Corn silage, while being a good source of energy, is low in protein. 44

45 In small herds and tie-stalls, different feed components of a ration are sometimes fed separately (component feeding). However, this system is gradually replaced by so called mixed rations, where either all feed components (concentrates, roughages, feed supplements and mineral and vitamin mixes; total mixed ration, TMR; Figure 1.29) or all feed stuffs except the concentrates (partly mixed rations) are mixed. Mixing of feed components according to the dietary calculation can be done precisely with mixer-feeder wagons (Figure 1.30). In order to ensure complete mixing and a stable mixture of forages, concentrates and supplemental feeds, which vary substantially in particle size, forages need to be chopped to about 18 mm. Rations are mixed commonly from fresh feed stuffs and offered to cows up to three times a day. When some concentrates are fed separately, it is often offered in computerised dispensers. Before fresh feed is offered, the feeding trough is usually cleaned. Figure Total mixed ration feeding in loose housing for dairy cows; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren). 45

46 Figure Total mixed ration feeding in loose housing for dairy cows; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren). Concentrates and feed additives are mainly given in separate automated dispensers (Figure 1.31) or in a TMR, or both. In component feeding, the concentrate ration is usually divided in several small portions. Part of the concentrates can be provided in the milking parlour. Concentrates dispensers are often scattered out in the cubicle rows, each one replacing a stall. A sufficient number of feeding stations is necessary to give all cows easy access without stress or prolonged waiting periods. Cows are individually recognised at the concentrate feeding station by transponders which are carried either as ear tags or as a necklace. The nutritional value of pasture grass changes over the season and therefore difficult to evaluate. In particular for high yielding cows it is very difficult to calculate a well balanced ration when there is a high uncertainty about the nutritional value of one of the major feed components. Thus, many dairy farmers prefer to feed cows with preserved feed stuffs which nutritional values are known from analysis or available feeding tables. In consequence many dairy cows are kept either year round indoors or have daily access to pasture for a restricted period of time (commonly a few hours). In AMS systems, cows can sometimes choose to go indoors and eat the total mixed ration (and be milked) and then go out again to graze. Zerograzing occurs when pasture is scarce or the possibilities to drive cows to pastures are limited. With dairy herds over 1000 cows, grazing becomes difficult to realise practically. In a few countries (e.g. Sweden), grazing is compulsory for cows. Dairy replacement calves are not always grazed and replacement heifers can be kept indoors or grazed one or several times before calving. Beef cattle are grazed to widely varying degrees, from no time at all to permanently from birth to death. Calves can be kept with their mother for almost no time at all, up to several months of time. Dairy calves are usually separated from their mother within a day after birth (several days in organic production) and kept in individual or group pens until weaned at 6-8 weeks of age. Calves of beef suckler cows are kept with their mother for 6-10 months, when they are weaned. Milk feeding can be based on whole cow milk or on a milk substitute. Milk feeding of dairy calves can be manual with calves kept individually, or fully automated in groups, 46

47 identifying animals by transponder chips to optimise feeding individually (Figure 1.32). In contrast to other calves, white veal calves are not weaned, receive large amounts of milk replacer and usually obtain only restricted amounts of solid food. Figure Computerised concentrate stations in a cubicle system with slatted walkways; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren). Figure Group calf pen with computerised milk dispenser; Sweden (photo: Catarina Svensson). 47

48 When no pasture is available in hot climates, dry-lot feeding is sometimes practised. A dry-lot is an enclosure or corral, usually without vegetation and used for feeding livestock. In Europe, dry-lot feeding is rarely practised for dairy cattle, but more common in cow-calf beef herds and can also be used for fattening. It can be practised during the whole or part of the traditional grazing season. In some situations it can supplement grazing practises or be a viable alternative management system. Dry-lot is an option during a drought, herd expansion or loss of pastures. Permanent access to water has to be provided both in indoor as well as outdoor systems. Water can be given in cups or troughs (Figure 1.33). Automatic regulated troughs and drinker cups are used in animal houses and farm yards. On pasture, tank wagons can make sure that the cows have access to water. In cold climate and uninsulated buildings, water cups can be isolated, heated or served by pre-heated water, to avoid freezing and secure good water supply. Figure Water trough in loose housing of dairy cows; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren) Breeding and reproduction The main aim of cattle breeding for the last 50 years has been to improve production efficiency, with genetic selection focused on increasing milk yield in dairy breeds and increasing growth and meat quality in beef breeds. In many European countries, yield per cow has more than doubled in the last 40 years, due to improvements in both genetics and management. Overall, the genetic gain in milk production reaches 1.5% per year, mostly owing to the effective use of artificial insemination (AI), progeny testing, and intense selection of bulls for widespread use around the world (Rodríguez-Martínez et al., 2008). Most modern AI-bulls have been selected for the single trait of milk production yield with some consideration also being given to nutrition, but not to traits associated with reproduction, thus leading to an antagonistic relationship between milk yield and reproductive 48

49 performance. In some countries, animal health, reproduction and longevity have played a significant role in bull selection programmes (Rodríguez-Martínez et al., 2008). Starting in the early 1970, large scale European imports from the US began of live Holstein animals, followed by semen and embryos. Early imports were particularly to Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and France. In addition the Netherlands, France and other countries had their internal genetic improvement programmes based on Holstein embryo imports. The import of semen and embryos has resulted in a gradual shift from indigenous dairy breeds to Holsteins in much of Europe. Double-muscled animals are characterised by hyperplasia and hypertrophy of the muscle fibres, resulting in fast growth and in lean and usually tender meat. The cause of the double muscle character has been identified as a mutation of a single major autosomal gene coding for the myostatin protein. Double muscled animals are found in several European breeds e.g. the Belgian Blue, Charolais and Piemontese. Homozygotic double-muscled cows are often submitted to caesarean section (35-48% of calvings have been reported in Belgian Blue). Heterozygous animals are characterised only by a higher growth rate than the normal genotype. AI is a standard procedure in dairy farms. Bull mating is practised mainly in small herds and is also used in heifers and repeat breeder cows in large herds. Beef cattle are usually bred by bull service. Embryo transfer is mainly carried out by superovulation and non-surgical recovery. Embryos may be transferred directly or frozen for storage and future use. Oocytes from follicles can be retrieved by laparoscopy or ultrasound-guided transvaginal retrieval. The use of juvenile donors in embryo-transfer programmes offers considerable potential for accelerated genetic gain in domestic livestock through reduced generation interval. It also provides a more rapid means of expanding the line from a particularly valuable genotype such as a transgenic founder animal. Sexed semen might be used to reduce the number of unwanted dairy bull calves. To collect semen for AI, electro-ejaculation is sometimes practised, mainly in beef cattle in Southern and Eastern Europe, e.g. Spain and Italy. Reproductive performance is related to cow welfare in several ways (EFSA, 2009d) and relies on the expression of oestrus signs. The expression of oestrus requires normal sexual cyclicity, but also environmental conditions that allow the exhibition of oestrus signs, such as increased activity, sexual play and standing when mounted by other animals. Artificial insemination relies on effective oestrus detection, which is carried out one or several times per day. Electronic activity meters can support detection. Calving can take place in a separate calving pen, group or individual (Figure 1.34), or at pasture. In some tied herds, calving takes place in the tie-stall. Calving pens can be designed in different ways, but should allow for normal behaviour and for care and treatment of animals diseased or injured in connection to calving. Calving pens are often used for other diseased animals, which might increase the spread of infectious disease. Calving should be arranged and supervised in a way to allow control and supervision of the cow and her offspring. The calf s consumption of enough colostrum of good quality sufficiently close to 49

50 birth must be secured. Caesarean section is most commonly performed at first calving. Risk factors for caesarean section consist of first parity, single male calf, long gestation period, long interval between first service and conception, long dry period, sired by a bull of doublemuscled structure, under 730 days of age at first calving, and having had a previous caesarean section. Caesareans are used routinely in double-muscled beef cattle. Figure Individual calving pen for a dairy cow; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren) Milking Dairy cows can be milked by hand (which occurs in small herds) or by machine. There is a plethora of milking systems and types of milking equipment on the market. Tied cows are usually milked in their tie-stalls, while loose-housed cows are milked in a separate milking parlour. Before being milked in a parlour, cows are usually gathered in a holding area to buffer cow traffic. There are great variations in the design of milking parlours and milking equipment. Routines also vary with respect to e.g. cleaning, pre-milking massage, milking times and post-milking disinfection of teats. Cows are usually milked twice daily. When cheap labour is abundant, three milkings is an option. Milking usually takes place in a milking parlour, often located in a separate building. A milking parlour consists of a holding pen to gather cows to be milked and regulate cow traffic, individual milking stalls and an area (pit) for the milker (usually between two rows of milking stalls). The number of milking stalls per parlour varies from four to around 30, depending on herd size and type of milking stalls. The stands can be arranged in different patterns, either parallel to the central pit (tandem stalls), diagonally (diagonal or herringbone stalls) or perpendicular to the pit (parallel stalls) (Figure 1.35). Cows can enter and exit the stalls batch-wise or individually, according to parlour design. In a rotary or carousel parlour, mainly used in herds >200 cows, the stalls are arranged on a large rotating mechanism with 50

51 the milker pit located in the centre or outside the mechanism (Figure 1.36). In a rotary parlour, the cows are milked while the mechanism revolves almost one full turn. Milking is usually mechanised and partly automated; the milker cleans the teats and attaches the cluster, while it is removed automatically. In a limited number of cases, the cows are milked fully automatically (automatic milking system, AMS, or robotic milking) on a voluntary basis (Figure 1.37). AMS is mainly applied in medium-sized herds ( cows) and the robots are placed strategically in the system to allow frequent milking. To a lesser extent, loosehoused cows can also be milked (usually temporarily) in tie-stalls. Figure Three different cattle milking parlour designs: tandem (left), herringbone (middle) and parallel (right) (with permission from DeLaval International AB). 51

52 Figure Rotary cattle milking parlour (with permission from DeLaval International AB). Figure Automatic milking station for cows; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren). 52

53 At the end of lactation, cows dry off in preparation for next calving and lactation. Dairy cattle are usually dried off 5-8 weeks before next calving is anticipated, sometimes at a milk yield of 25 kg per day. The timing and the method to achieve drying off varies, usually involving restricted feeding and sometimes reducing milking gradually. Dry dairy cows are usually kept in a separate group away from lactating cows to facilitate separate feeding Dung removal and hygiene Faeces, used litter, urine and spill water are usually removed from stalls and walkways at least once daily, in dairy operations usually twice or several times daily, depending on manure production. In young stock and beef cattle, walkways can be scraped less frequently. Solid floors can be lightly sloped (1-2%) to provide better drainage. Automatic scrapers of various types are commonly installed (Figure 1.38) or, occasionally, the floor is scraped using a tractor while the cows are away for milking. Flushing of solid floors with large amounts of water is an alternative to scrapers, but generally not applied in Europe. Slatted floors usually stay acceptably clean without additional labour for manure removal (except for corners and other less trafficked places). In some countries scrapers have also been installed on top of slatted floors to improve cleanliness further and to reduce ammonia emission. Liquid manure (slurry) is transported to a container outside the building, where it is stored until spread on crops (Figure 1.39). Deep straw packs are usually removed yearly or after each rearing or fattening batch, and a new pack is started. Figure Manure scraper in a solid walkway in cubicle system; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren). 53

54 Figure Slurry handling in a cubicle system (Kostallplan-07, 2007; with permission from DeLaval International AB). Dairy replacement heifers and cows can be routinely clipped on tails, udder and hind legs to improve cleanliness. Cattle are rarely manually dressed or cleaned routinely, although automatically rotating or immobile brushes are sometimes used for the cows to self-groom, thus possibly increasing comfort and well-being. In some places, electric cow trainers (Figure 1.40) are used in tied dairy cows to keep the stall floor as free from manure and urine as possible by forcing the cows to step backwards as they arch their backs when defecating or urinating. The use of cow-trainers is prohibited in several European countries Animal health management Regardless of housing system, high levels of management are essential for the prevention and control of infectious diseases. Measures to prevent the spread of infections in dairy and beef production will probably gain increasing importance in the future. Therefore, prophylaxes, prevention and protection of animal operations are the keys for safeguarding health of farm animals in the future. Applying strict hygiene principles meets the demands of the consumer for safe and high quality food. The prevention and control of infectious diseases involves a wide range of measures, sometimes referred to as biosecurity measures. These include restriction of contact with pathogen sources, such as infected animals, foodstuffs and vectors, quarantine procedures, vaccination, reducing vulnerability to disease, hygienic measures and various other aspects. 54

55 Figure Electric cow trainer (photo: Jan Hultgren). Biosecurity in relation to cattle management can be defined as a strategy of management practices to prevent introduction of disease and pathogens to and to control spread within the herd, sometimes called external and internal disease control. Transmissible infectious diseases can be introduced into herds by new herd members coming from other herds, or by herd members that have been in contact with other herds. Quarantine and testing of individual animals is not totally effective as a means to prevent the introduction of diseases with a long incubation period or those for which reliable diagnostic tests at the individual level are lacking. Complementing quarantine and testing by sourcing animals from herds known to be free of the disease or those of an equal or higher health status provides added assurance. Some diseases may also be transmitted by humans, such as veterinarians, technicians, transporters, service personnel or neighbours visiting different herds within short periods and carrying infectious agents on mucous membranes, hands, boots, or clothing. An effective biosecurity programme needs to be decision-focused and flexible enough to adapt to the unique situations of individual enterprises. This requires an understanding of biosecurity and disease preventive principles, as well as specific information relative to the biology and epidemiology of the particular pathogens of interest. Biosecurity programmes need to be supported by monitoring and documentation of diseases occurrence and variables like patterns of antibiotic resistance. This allows improvement of strategies for prevention and intervention when incidence rates of production diseases exceed threshold levels, usually set with a herd veterinary service. The prevention of infectious diseases needs to be combined with measures for an early detection of disease. Stockpersons play a considerable role in this process, e.g for the surveillance at milking (especially for mastitis), but also during the day when cows are in stalls or at pasture. Many infectious diseases occur after parturition and regular close surveillance during the first 8-10 days after calving is of particular importance. Removing calves from their infected dams as soon as possible after birth, and rearing on specific pathogen-free colostrum and milk is a strategy that have been applied to reduce disease 55

56 occurrence. Scoring of body condition and lameness can be helpful tools in detection of subclinical disease or health problems. Larger dairy farms sometimes rely on movement detectors (e.g. pedometers) to identify sick animals but these provide a limited amount of information. Automated feeding systems which identify individual cows can also be used to indicate animals with reduced appetite, whilst computer surveillance of milk yields can detect reduced milk yield which can be an early sign of disease. Bulk-milk testing for e.g. BVD or IBR can be used as an efficient and cost effective way to monitor health status. Post-mortem examinations can be helpful to reveal e.g. Salmonella infection. Proper facilities for severely sick or injured animals are essential because such animals need isolation or extra space to move, because it reduces spread of infection and because it prevents complications, trauma, stress and fear. These facilities also make human surveillance easier, facilitate treatments and allow for procedures that increase chances of recovery, e.g. regular lifting of a downer cow. Pens for diseased cows are well ventilated, have a nonslippery floor, good drainage, soft bedding, milking equipment and easily accessible water and food trough. If pens for sick cows are also used for calving, the risk of disease transmission is increased. In most EU countries farmers can administer drugs after veterinary prescription and under the surveillance of veterinarians. However, routines for veterinary surveillance and training of stockpersons responsible for drug administration vary greatly between countries. Many drugs, including antimicrobials or anti-inflammatory drugs, are needed for the direct and indirect relief of pain and suffering in animals. In some cases drugs are not used because of their cost or because of concerns about human food safety. Pain management may be far from optimal because of drawbacks in using analgesic drugs in food-producing animals. Organic farms restrict the use of antimicrobials and other drugs. Additional restriction in the use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals is to be expected, so research on alternatives to antimicrobials, such as vaccines and probiotics may be necessary. Antimicrobials are not a replacement for good management. The use of hormones and other drugs are very common in fertility controlling programmes in dairy herds. These drugs are used for oestrus synchronisation, uterine infection treatment, anoestrus treatment, repeat-breeders and other fertility problems. Extensive health management programmes exist to control mastitis, including regular recordings of milk cell counts at cow and teat levels, examination of the udder and milk at milking, microbiological analyses of clinically affected or suspected quarters, adjustments of milking equipment and milking routines, post-milking teat dipping with disinfectant solutions, antimicrobial treatment of clinical disease and of chronic infections at drying-off, grouping and sorting of cows at milking according to udder status, improvements of stall hygiene, measures to secure feed and water hygiene, fly control, and culling of chronically infected cows. Similarly, management practices exist to control the occurrence and spread of hood diseases. These practices include improvements of flooring, comfort and hygiene of walkways and stalls, regular claw trimming at least one but preferably twice per year, preventive and therapeutic foot baths with e.g. inorganic copper solutions. Antimicrobial solutions can be applied externally to the feet for the control of contagious diseases. Foot bathing is a standard practice in loose housed dairy herds, but routines and the time interval between bathing 56

57 periods vary between herds according to disease occurrence and local recommendations. The footbath is often placed at the exit from the milking parlour to encourage cow passage (Figure 1.41). On-farm killing of individual animals in many cases is the only practical way to provide prompt relief of otherwise uncontrollable animal suffering. This option is taken whenever transport to the abattoir will cause additional stress and suffering, or when food security aspects render conventional slaughter less suitable. Common indications for individual onfarm killing include severe trauma (e.g. fractures), loss of production and quality of life (e.g. severe mastitis or pneumonia), inability to stand or walk, advanced neoplasia, debilitating or toxic conditions, high cost of treatment, prohibitive or extended withdrawal time for sale of meat or milk, and very poor prognosis. Figure Foot bath at exit from milking parlour; Sweden (photo: Jan Hultgren) Surgical procedures and mutilations Proper animal identification is essential to efficient record keeping, proof of ownership, and routine observation. Ear tagging (with plastic tags) is the method of identification most commonly used in European dairy farms. Some other alternatives are possible: tattooing, foot or neck electronic identifier, hot branding and freeze branding. The use of a microchip (subcutaneously injected, ear-tag or ruminal bolus) is being testes. Male calves are often castrated to reduce aggressive and sexual behaviour, to reduce the risk of meat quality problems (particularly, dark cutting meat) and to encourage fattening. The necessity for castration depends on the rearing system and the age at which it is done varies from a few weeks to more than a year. There are several methods available, including surgical removal of the testes, crushing of the spermatic cords and occlusion of blood vessels (with a 57

58 rubber ring) with subsequent ischemia and necrosis of the scrotum. Anaesthesia is not always used. Immunological and chemical castration has been tested. Tail docking is removal of a part of the tail. In dairy cattle it is done to improve animal cleanness, in beef cattle mainly to reduce the risk of tail necrosis. The tail tip can be removed either surgically with cauterisation, or by occluding blood vessels with a rubber ring. Tail docking is illegal in some countries but has become a routine intervention in some dairy farms. Disbudding or dehorning is carried out in both dairy and beef animals to reduce management problems and goring injuries. Several methods are available. Dairy heifers are usually disbudded before 3 months of age by direct application of a caustic paste o by burning the horn bud, sometimes under local anaesthesia. Adult animals can be dehorned applying a saw or clipper near to the horn base. Supernumerary teats are the most common congenital abnormality in dairy cattle. Supernumerary teats can get infected and so provide chronic infection for other quarters and other animals, and they can interfere with milking. Amputation can be done with sharp scissors or scalpel blade under local anaesthesia. No suture is needed if done on very young calves. However, supernumerary teats are sometimes removed after weaning at around 3 months of age. Removal of medial hind dewclaws is a routine practice in some dairy farms and is done at early ages with a scalpel or scissors to minimise self-induced teat injuries. In Europe this intervention is not common. Nose rings are often used in bull sires to facilitate handling. The age at application varies Other management aspects Common bedding materials are straw, sawdust and wood shavings. Occasionally, peat or sand is used. In high intensity systems, straw is usually chopped. Many different kinds of stall mats and mattresses are available, both for tied and cubicle-housed cattle. Bedding like sawdust is used on top of mats or mattresses to overcome problems with the hardness of the mats and absorption of moisture on the mats and mattresses. In deep-pack systems, long straw is most commonly used as bedding material. Grouping of heifers and cows can be done according to various strategies. Heifers are often grouped according to age and whether or not they are bred and pregnant. Dairy cows are most often grouped according to whether or not they are lactating and to nutritional requirements (reflecting level of milk production). Grouping according to udder health occurs. Beef cattle are often grouped according to sex and age category. Routines for re-grouping vary considerably between herds. Transhumance is a seasonal movement of people with their livestock over relatively short distances, typically to higher pastures in summer and to lower valleys in winter, practised in e.g. Bulgaria, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Republic of Macedonia, Romania, Scandinavia, Scotland, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey. The movement in itself might pose threats to animal welfare, and housing and management might differ greatly between summer and winter locations. 58

59 Since 2000, cows housed in tie-stall systems on organic farms in EU have to be exercised regularly Geographical distribution Table 1.5 shows the distribution of cattle by major milk and beef producing countries in Table 1.6 shows the corresponding numbers of holdings and mean herd sizes. Housing systems and practices vary greatly between countries (Table 1.7), although information is not easily available. Tie-stalls for cows are used mostly in Northern Europe and a few mountainous areas of Central Europe. In most countries the vast majority of cows are loose-housed. Long-stalls are seen in Scandinavia, Northern Germany and the Baltic States. Due to international trade, the number of beef cattle fattened in relation to the number of cows varies between countries. Table 1.8 shows the numbers of exported and imported cattle in thirteen major milk and beef producing countries. In 2007, European countries exported a total of 4.2 million cattle and at the same time imported 3.9 million head (FAOSTAT, 2009). For example, France has few fattening cattle relative to its cow population, while Italy has many fattening cattle relative to cows. 59

60 Table 1.5. Total cattle Country ( 000) Belarus 3 988,7 France ,0 Germany ,6 Ireland 6 704,1 Italy 6 117,0 Netherlands 3 763,0 Poland 5 696,2 Romania 2 934,0 Spain 6 585,0 Switzerland 1 566,9 Turkey ,4 Ukraine 6 175,4 United Kingdom ,0 a No data available. Numbers of cattle in countries together holding 80-83% of the European dairy and beef populations, and proportions of total numbers in Europe (excluding Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russian Federation) (Eurostat, 2009; FAOSTAT, 2009) Prop. cattle (%) 3,4% 16,5% 10,8% 5,7% 5,2% 3,2% 4,8% 2,5% 5,6% 1,3% 9,3% 5,3% 8,8% Dairy cows ( 000) 1 505, , , , , , , ,0 903,3 694, , , ,0 Prop. dairy (%) 4,1% 10,6% 11,2% 3,0% 5,0% 3,9% 7,5% 4,6% 2,5% 1,9% 11,6% 9,0% 5,4% Beef cows ( 000) n.a. a 4 276,8 743, ,8 600,5 88,8 56,8 45, ,0 n.a. n.a. n.a ,3 Prop. beef (%) - 34,4% 6,0% 9,0% 4,8% 0,7% 0,5% 0,4% 13,4% ,6% Cattle slaughter ( 000) 1 570, , , , , , , , ,5 612, , , ,0 Prop. cattle slaughter (%) 4,1% 13,2% 9,6% 4,6% 10,3% 4,9% 4,0% 3,1% 5,9% 1,6% 5,2% 9,7% 6,9% Table 1.6. Country Belarus France Germany Ireland Italy Netherlands Poland Romania Spain Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Numbers of cattle holdings and herd sizes in major milk and beef producing countries in Europe 2007 (excluding Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russian Federation) (Eurostat, 2009). Total bovine holdings n.a. b n.a. n.a. n.a Cattle herd size a n.a. 88,0 74,8 63,9 41,6 106,7 7,9 2,7 53,1 n.a. n.a. n.a. 105,5 Dairy cow holdings n.a n.a. n.a. n.a Dairy cow herd size n.a. 41,3 40,3 51,0 29,0 57,6 4,2 1,6 24,2 n.a. n.a. n.a. 69,4 Beef cow holdings n.a n.a. n.a. n.a a Calculated as number of cattle / number of holdings with bovines, i.e. including holdings with buffaloes. b No data available. Beef cow herd size n.a. 31,8 12,7 15,9 13,6 11,0 7,6 2,1 21,5 n.a. n.a. n.a. 25,9 60

61 Table 1.7. Country Belarus France Germany Ireland Italy Netherlands Poland Romania Spain Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Estimated proportion (%) of dairy cows in different husbandry systems in major milk producing countries in Europe a. Housed in tie-stalls n.a. c n.a. n.a. <5 n.a. <5 n.a. n.a. n.a. 71 n.a. n.a. n.a. Housed in cubicles with slatted walkways n.a. n.a. n.a. >95 d n.a. 75 n.a. n.a. n.a. 9 n.a. n.a. n.a. Housed in cubicles with solid walkways n.a. n.a. n.a. >95 d n.a n.a. n.a. n.a. 20 n.a. n.a. n.a. Housed in deep packs n.a. n.a. n.a. <5 n.a. 7.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. <1 n.a. n.a. n.a. Dry-lots or outdoor concrete enclosures b n.a. n.a. n.a. <5 n.a n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. Zerograzing n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 n.a n.a. n.a. n.a. <1 n.a. n.a. n.a. a Personal communications, 2010: Michel de Haan, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Lelystad, Netherlands; Norina Coppinger, Teagasc, Animal Production Research Centre, Athenry, Ireland; Gertraud Schuepbach, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. b Used for periods. c No data available. d Either slatted or solid walkways, the majority having a combination. Table 1.8. International cattle trade and beef cattle slaughter related to cow population in major milk and beef producing countries in Europe 2007 (excluding Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russian Federation) (Eurostat, 2009). Country Belarus France Germany Ireland Italy Netherlands Poland Romania Spain Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Cattle exports ( 000 head) Prop. of European exports 0,0% 32,0% 13,0% 3,7% 1,2% 3,6% 13,6% 7,6% 1,6% 0,1% 0,0% 0,0% 0,5% Cattle imports ( 000 head) Prop. of European imports 0,0% 4,4% 3,0% 0,0% 31,8% 18,2% 0,5% 0,2% 19,8% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 0,5% Net cattle exports ( 000 head) -0, ,9 424,1 153, ,8-553,8 542,8 311,4-701,9 1,0-3,9-2,2 0,3 a Calculated as the number of calves, bulls, steers or heifers slaughtered divided by number of dairy or beef cows. b No data available. Beef cattle slaughtered per cow a n.a. b 0,42 0,50 0,63 1,43 0,96 0,38 0,40 0,82 n.a. n.a. n.a. 0,61 61

62 Dairy cattle High intensity dairy systems are seen in the Netherlands, England, SW Scotland, La Mayenne region of France, Western and SW France, Northern Italy, Sweden, Finland, Northern Spain, Denmark, Germany and throughout the continental region. In 1995, these systems accounted for approximately 83% of total EU15 dairy cow numbers (about 18.5 million head) and 85% of total EU15 milk production (about 96 million tonnes) (CEAS, 2000). Some changes in these percentages since 1995 are likely but current figures are not easily obtained. The low intensity type of system has essentially been associated with the main form of dairy production in Ireland, although variations to this exist in some other regions such as the northern and western extremities of the UK, parts of northern and eastern France and throughout the Atlantic and continental regions (section on geographical distribution) where producers have taken up organic production systems. In 1995, these systems probably accounted for 6-8% of total EU15 dairy cow numbers (about million head) and about 4-5% of total EU15 milk production (about million tonnes) (CEAS, 2000). Mountain systems are found in the mountain and foothill areas of the Alps, Pyrenees, Cantabria and Scandinavian Mountains, as well as upland and plateaux areas such as the Massif Central, Auvergne and the Black Forest. In 1995, these systems probably accounted for less than 5% of total EU15 dairy cow numbers (under 1 million head) and less than 4% of total EU15 milk production (up to about 4.5 million tonnes) (CEAS, 2000). Mediterranean systems are found in Mediterranean areas: Albania, Cyprus, Greece, Macedonia, Montenegro and Portugal, and parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy, France, Spain and Turkey, excluding northern parts, upland/mountain foothills and mountains. In 1995, these systems probably accounted for approximately 7% of total EU15 dairy cow numbers (about 1.5 million head) and 5% of total EU15 milk production (about 6 million tonnes) (CEAS, 2000). The International Farm Comparison Network (2009) identified four herd size classes and their geographical distribution: 1-50 cows, including (i) average and large farms in Norway, Austria, Bulgaria and Turkey, (ii) household family farms in Central and Eastern Europe, and (iii) average sized farms in Western Europe cows, including smaller farms in Northern Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, and larger farms in other West European countries cows, including large family farms in the Netherlands, Ireland and Sweden, and farms in Italy, UK and Denmark. >301 cows, including large scale farms in Central and Eastern Europe. CEAS (2000) distinguished six agri-environmental or bio-geographical regions: the Atlantic, continental, Mediterranean, boreal, alpine and Macronesian (Table 1.9). Essentially, the Mediterranean region corresponds to the Mediterranean production system, and the alpine region to the mountain system. On the other hand, the high and low intensity production systems are both spread throughout the Atlantic, continental and Macronesian regions. The 62

63 remainder of this section is a description of the bio-geographical regions according to CEAS (2000). The numbers of dairy cows and dairy cow holdings in different agri-environmental regions in the 13 major milk production countries 2007 (Table 1.10) was calculated based on the CEAS (2000) and Eurostat (2009) figures, assuming that the distribution of cows and holdings within the seven countries described at that time (France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and UK) was the same 2007, that Belarus, Poland, Romania and Ukraine belong completely to the continental region, that 50% of the cows and holdings of Switzerland are within the continental region and the rest within the alpine, and that 80% of the Turkish cows and holdings are within the continental region and the rest within the Mediterranean. Table 1.9. Region Distribution of dairy cows and production of milk delivered to dairies by agri-environmental or bio-geographical region of EU (Eurostat, 2009; CEAS, 2000). Total dairy cows ( 000 head) Prop. of dairy pop. (%) Total milk production ( 000 tonnes) Prop. of milk production (%) Atlantic Continental Alpine Mediterranean Boreal Macronesian 12,205 6,890 1,014 1, ,634 32,881 4,630 5,958 5, Table Country Belarus France Germany Ireland Italy Netherlands Poland Romania Spain Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Estimated numbers of dairy cows and dairy cow holdings in five different agri-environmental regions in major milk-producing countries in Europe 2007 (CEAS, 2000; Eurostat, 2009). Atlantic Continental Mediterranean Boreal Alpine Cows Cows Cows ( 000 ( 000 Holding Cows ( 000) Holdings ) Holdings ) s Cows ( 000) Holding s n.a. a b n.a. n.a n.a ( 000) Holdings b a No data available. b Data on number of cow holdings from Swiss Federal Statistical Office (2009). 63

64 The Atlantic region comprises all of Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK, and parts of Denmark, France, Germany, Norway and Spain. The UK and Atlantic region of France are the two most important regions with respect to the proportion of dairy cows. The Netherlands also has a significant proportion of dairy cows, especially given its small size relative to other components of this region (CEAS, 2000). The proportion of dairy holdings in the French Atlantic region is approximately the same as the proportion of dairy cows, although the UK has twice the proportion of dairy cows than it has holdings, suggesting a greater concentration of the dairy industry relative to Atlantic France. In contrast, the proportion of dairy holdings in Atlantic Spain is more than three times the proportion of dairy cows in this region which suggests that there are a lot of relatively small scale producers. The Netherlands also has a lower proportion of holdings than dairy cows suggesting that dairying is fairly intensive or specialised. In the other components of this region the proportions of holdings and dairy cows are approximately balanced (CEAS, 2000). Eight of the EU s most productive dairy farming areas belong to the Atlantic bio-geographical region (Ireland, south-west England, Lower Normandy, Brittany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Lower Saxony and Asturias), and these include the most intensive dairy production systems in Europe and the largest dairy farms. With the exception of the northern Spanish region of Asturias and Ireland, these are the places where dairy farming tends to be most intense. Key features are larger farms, higher levels of milk produced per cow, less use of grazing and more use of supplementary feeding with concentrates and off-farm fodder than in any other regions within the EU. There are, of course, considerable differences between dairy farming regions and between areas within the regions (CEAS, 2000). The predominant breed in the Atlantic region is the Holstein-Friesian. However, other breeds are also significant in certain areas, for example, the Normande in Normandy, the Simmental in Germany and the Nordic Red breeds in Denmark and Norway. The main systems found in the Atlantic region are intensive grassland, conventional mixed and intensive corn or grass silage systems. In 1995, average herd size was approx. 30 cows and average milk yield 5,200 kg/cow-year (Eurostat). Average herd size varies widely from 69 in the UK to only 8 in Atlantic Spain. Dairying in the Netherlands is high intensity (with presumably a high level of non-grazed feed) and/or highly specialised. Average farm size in Atlantic France is second only to the UK, yet average herd size is only slightly above the Atlantic region average. This suggests that dairying in this region is relatively more extensive (more reliant on grazing/fodder crops) and/or less specialised than that in the Netherlands (CEAS, 2000). The continental region is made up of Belarus, Czechia, Hungary, Kosovo, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine, and parts of Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey (CEAS, 2000). The predominant breed in the Continental region is the Holstein-Friesian. However, other breeds are also significant in certain areas, for example, the Simmental in Germany, the Nordic Red breeds in Norway and Sweden. The main systems found in the Continental region are intensive corn or grass silage and conventional mixed systems. The proportion of holdings with more than 100 dairy cows has increased dramatically, albeit from a low base, whilst the proportion of dairy cows kept on holdings of more than 100 head has increased by an even 64

65 greater amount. These figures suggest that dairy production in this region is becoming increasingly large scale. Herd sizes and milk yields vary significantly within the region. The highest yields are in Sweden and Denmark and the lowest in Austria. The largest reported average herd size is in Denmark and the lowest in Austria (CEAS, 2000; Eurostat, 2009; FAOSTAT, 2009). The Mediterranean region comprises Albania, Cyprus, Greece, Macedonia, Montenegro, Portugal and parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy, France, Spain and Turkey (CEAS, 2000). The Boreal region is made up of Estonia, Finland, Iceland and parts of Latvia, Norway and Sweden (CEAS, 2000). The Boreal region contains both more hardy cattle such as the Nordic Red breeds and the Ayrshire breed, but also a significant amount of Holstein-Friesian. The predominant systems found in the Boreal region are intensive grasslands and permanent grasslands. Dairy production in Sweden is larger scale and more intensive and/or specialised than dairy farming in the other parts of the region (CEAS, 2000). The Alpine region comprises the Alps, the Pyrenees, the Apennines and the Scandinavian Mountain range. It is therefore made up of Andorra, and parts of Austria, France, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland (CEAS, 2000). Most of the dairy cows in the Alpine region are located in Italy (predominantly in the Italian Alps, less in the Apennines). The intensity of production is above average for the region in Italy and below average for Austria. There are thus likely to be fewer and larger dairy farms in Italy, more frequent, but smaller dairy holdings in Austria (CEAS, 2000). Recent data on breeds in the Alpine region is largely unavailable, and where data have been found they are at the Member There are some specific mountain breeds and dairying in mountain areas is more likely to be mixed and/or small scale and therefore a higher proportion of multi-purpose cattle can be expected. The predominant systems found in the Alpine region are: permanent grasslands (mountains) and transhumance systems. Dairy farming in the Alpine region is generally small scale, although there are significant local differences. Average milk yield is highest in Spain and lowest in Austria, and the largest average dairy holding is in Spain, the smallest in Austria (CEAS, 2000). The Macronesian region contains the Spanish and Portuguese island groups of the Canaries, Madeira and the Azores, situated off the Iberian and north-west African coasts. Eighty seven per cent of the dairy cows in the Macronesian zone are located in the Azores, 11% in the Canaries and 2% on Madeira. There is a greater proportion of dairy holdings than dairy cows in the Canaries (22%) and Madeira (15%), suggesting that keeping a small number of cows is common. The reverse is true for the Azores suggesting that dairying here is more intensive and larger scale (CEAS, 2000). No quantitative data on breeds are available, although it is believed that most of the dairy cows are Holstein-Friesians. The main systems found in the Macronesian region are intensive grasslands and permanent grasslands. Dairy farming in the Macronesian region is small scale. At a regional level average milk yield in the Azores is more than twice that in Madeira. However, average herd size in the Azores is much greater than those found in either Madeira or the Canaries (CEAS, 2000). 65

66 Beef cattle Most of the small livestock farms (less than five beef cows and less than five dairy cows) are located in Southern Europe and especially in the Mediterranean areas of Italy, Spain and Portugal. Cow-calf farms are located in the grasslands of Britain, Ireland, France and Northern Europe, in the Mediterranean areas of Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal, and in the mountain areas of France, Spain and Eastern Europe. Cow-calf farms that fatten the majority of their progeny as suckler calves, bulls, heifers or steers are mainly located in the grasslands of Ireland and the UK and in the forage crops areas of France and Northern Europe. Combined cow-calf and sheep production are located in Ireland and the UK. Specialised fatteners of calves, bulls, heifers or steers are located in Italy, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Ireland and UK. In Ireland and UK, fattening of steers on permanent pastures is common (Sarzeaud et al., 2008). According to the European Commission (2001), slatted flooring for fattening beef cattle dominate in Finland, Germany, Ireland, Spain and Sweden, deep litter in Belgium and France and UK. By assuming that the distribution by country of beef-producing holdings of different types in 2004 (Sarzeaud et al., 2008) remained the same in 2007 and by applying data from 2007 on the total number of beef farms per country (Eurostat, 2009), the number of holdings of each type was estimated for each main beef-producing country (Table 1.11). Table Country France Germany Ireland Italy Netherlands Poland Romania Spain United Kingdom a No data available. Estimated numbers of beef holdings in main beef-producing countries in Europe 2007 (excluding Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russian Federation) (calculated from Sarzeaud et al., 2008; Eurostat, 2009). Pure cow-calf n.a. a n.a Cow-calf Cow-calf and finish and sheep n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a Pure finish n.a. n.a Small finish Finish and sheep n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a Beef and dairy n.a. n.a Pure Small dairy n.a n.a Total Table 1.12 gives data for calf slaughter in main beef-producing countries in These nine countries accounted for 85% of the calves slaughtered in Europe. Most calves were slaughtered in France, the Netherlands and Italy. In the Netherlands and Romania, more than half of the cattle slaughtered were calves. Table Calves slaughtered in main beef-producing countries in Europe 2007 (excluding Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russian Federation). Numbers of calves slaughtered and carcass weights, proportions of total cattle slaughtered, and proportions of total number of calves slaughtered (Eurostat, 2009; FAOSTAT, 2009). Country Number of Prop. of calves Prop. of cattle Meat weight Weight 66

67 France Germany Ireland Italy Netherlands Poland Romania Spain United Kingdom calves in Europe (%) 26,1% 5,1% 0,0% 14,3% 21,9% 3,9% 10,4% 3,0% 0,7% in country (%) 31,6% 8,4% 0,0% 22,2% 70,6% 15,6% 53,6% 8,1% 1,7% (tonnes) 219,4 39, ,7 212,1 14,3 112,0 28,78 1,3 per carcass (kg) Table 1.13 shows the total numbers of bulls, steers and heifers slaughtered in main beefproducing countries in The data do not distinguish intensive indoor rearing and fattening from grass-based production. Most of these animals were slaughtered in Italy, UK and Germany. In Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain practically no steers were slaughtered. In Romania, no heifers were slaughtered. Table Country France Germany Ireland Italy Netherlands Poland Romania Spain United Kingdom Bulls, steers and heifers slaughtered in main beef-producing countries in Europe 2007 (excluding Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russian Federation). Numbers of calves slaughtered and carcass weights, proportions of total cattle slaughtered, and proportions of total number of calves slaughtered (Eurostat, 2009; FAOSTAT, 2009). Number of animals Prop. of animals in Europe (%) 11,6% 13,6% 9,0% 16,8% 0,6% 5,3% 0,3% 12,5% 14,2% Prop. of cattle in country (%) 35,0% 56,0% 78,2% 65,0% 4,7% 52,4% 3,4% 85,2% 81,9% Meat weight (tonnes) 701, , ,1 851,446 30, ,186 7,9 525,45 744,573 Weight per carcass (kg)

68 1.4. Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare Cattle welfare can be compromised in a very large number of ways, relating to both housing and management. Main critical points for cattle welfare have been identified by EFSA (2006, 2009a-f), the European Commission (2001) and Welfare Quality (2009): Genetic selection and breeding, including effects on disease resistance and longevity; Nutrition and feeding, including suckling, weaning, grazing, roughage requirements and metabolic disorders, hygienic aspects, chemical and microbiological agents and toxic plants; Housing conditions, including areas for feeding, walking and resting, space allowance, flooring, exposure to electric shocks, and facilities for diseased animals; Thermoregulation and protection from adverse weather conditions; Indoor ventilation, including temperature, air humidity, airflow, gases and light; Bedding; Locomotion and exercise; Milking, including lactation management and cow traffic aspects; Social and maternal behaviour, including dominance, grouping, re-grouping, prepartum, calving and post-partum management, cow-calf interaction and separation; Marketing and local movements of animals; Animal health control, including Infectious disease, mastitis and lameness; Veterinary routines, drug usage and antimicrobial resistance; Human handling, including human-animal relationship, stockperson personality and attitude, restraint; On-farm monitoring; Animal identification and mutilations, including branding, disbudding and dehorning, tail-docking, removal of supernumerary teats and hind dewclaws; Reproductive management, including semen collection, bull mating, artificial insemination, embryo transfer, oocyte collection and caesarean section; On-farm killing; Nursing, including pain control; Owner and stockperson training. Additional critical points for cattle welfare, not covered by mentioned publications, are strategic plans and facilities to cope with certain emergency situations, such as electric power failures of long duration and fires. The risk of such events might be extremely low but, if occurring, the consequences can be fatal to large numbers of animals. Acknowledgements To DeLaval International AB, Tumba, Sweden (contact: manager Björn Forss Jannes) for allowing us to use their drawings and photographs on dairy cattle housing and equipment. To agri benchmark Beef Network, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Braunschweig, Germany (contact: coordinator Claus Deblitz) for allowing us to use their photographs on beef cattle. 68

69 To the Department of Rural Buildings and Animal Husbandry, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (contact: professor Krister Sällvik) for allowing us to use drawings from the dairy advisory project Kostallplan-07. Colleagues and experts on animal husbandry in different countries all over Europe, who provided us with valuable information and illustrations. 69

70 2. Pigs 2.1. Description of common husbandry systems in Europe Most pigs in the EU are now raised indoors under intensive farming conditions. Intensive systems include mainly four separate phases of production (breeding, farrowing, rearing, and, growing and finishing), with different feeding and housing conditions Breeding Breeding sows may be housed individually, in stable groups (formed at weaning or service and remaining unchanged until farrowing) or in large dynamic groups (where existing sows are removed to farrow and replaced by newly served sows on a regular basis). Individual housing in sow stalls are the most widely used housing system within EU. Although gestation stalls facilitate the control of feed intake and aggression, they have been criticized because they restrict freedom of movement and can be related to other welfare problems for the sow. EU directive 2001/88/EC requires that sows and gilts are kept in groups during a period starting from 4 weeks after the service to 1 week before the expected time of farrowing and that this shall be implemented in all member states by Replacement gilts are typically reared in groups, in the same way as growing pigs, until transfer to the breeding herd. It is common for these gilts to be housed separately from older sows until completion of their first lactation Individual housing in stalls Individual stalls typically allow the sow an area of x m, such that the sow cannot turn around and excreta are deposited at a fixed location. There are many different stall designs. In good designs, the stall width and length is adapted to the body size of the sow, the partitions are barred or meshed to allow visual contact but prevent aggression and the height and fixing position of the bottom rail are appropriate to avoid injury. Flooring is most commonly partially slatted, although fully slatted systems do occur. Sows commonly have a trough which is either individual or communal (4-6 sows) to allow the possibility of keeping sows of the same body size or condition in adjacent stalls. Feeding may be manual or automatic (1-3 times per day) and feed may be given dry or wet. Wet feeding systems can vary from the simple dropping of individual dry ration into water to complex pipeline distribution systems from a central, computer-controlled mixing facility Group housing of sows Most classifications of group housing systems are based on how the animals are fed. No doubt this preoccupation with feeding is related to one of the primary reasons for the initial change to stalls, that is, control over individual feed intake (and also prevention of aggression due to competition for resources). Control of feed intake must be viewed at three levels (Gonyou, 2003). The first achieving an appropriate average feed intake in the sows, although there is no control over individual intake. The second level of control achieves equal intake for all individuals, but it does not allow individual feeding. The final level of control is the ability to feed different amount to each animal. A well-designed and managed stall system can theoretically achieve this highest level of control. In group housing conditions sows form a strong hierarchy within the group. This is especially seen during feeding when less dominant sows will give way to dominant individuals. In all 70

71 group housing systems, some animals (5-10%) may fail to adapt to the competition of the group. Dry sows are typically fed a relatively small amount of a concentrate diet in one or two daily meals. This has influenced the design of group housing facilities, where use of individual feeding stalls is recommended to reduce aggression. Several different housing systems are present Group housing with individual feeding stalls True individual control of feed intake is only possible if sows are individually confined during feeding. Individual feeding stalls confine the sows temporarily during feeding preventing dominant individuals to chase off less dominant sows in order to get access to extra feed rations. Typically all animals are fed the same amount, but individuals can receive additional feed by hand. While confined for feeding, sows can be inspected and easily handled. Feeding stalls are slightly smaller than ordinary stalls, x m. The gate closing behind the sow can either be operated by the sow itself or by working staff. The feeding stalls are often combined with communal lying (solid floor with limited use of bedding material) and dunging areas (slatted flooring). Design varies with group size which is highly variable (5-40) (Figure 2.1). Feeding stalls can also be used in combination with deep straw bedding. Total free space available (excluding feeding stalls) is commonly m 2 per sow depending on group size. If stall width is minimum 60 cm and sows have free access, the stalls may be used for both feeding and resting, reducing the total space needed. Figure 2.1. Group housing system for pregnant sows in free access stalls (2x20). (Drawing: Herman Vermeer, ASG) However, this system is very expensive in terms of cost and occupation of the building. This cost can be reduced if several groups use one set of feeding stalls sequentially, although there is an associated increase in labour requirements. The system can be automated with electronically controlled gates to allow different groups to gain access to the feeding stalls at different times of the day Group housing with electronic sow feeder (ESF) An alternative to individual feeding stalls for achieving individual control of feed intake is the electronic sow feeder (ESF). In this system, animals are feed sequentially at one or more feeding stations controlled by a central computer. Each individual is identified on entry to the 71

72 station by an electronic transponder carried on an ear tag. A programmed individual ration of feed is then dispensed to that animal, which is protected while eating by a specialized crate with gates operated by the sow itself or by the computer. A single feeding station can be shared by up to 70 sows. In this system sows are often kept in large dynamic flocks ( sows) with communal dunging and lying areas (Figure 2.2). Figure 2.2. Group housing of pregnant sows with electronic sow feeder (200 sows). (Drawing: Herman Vermeer, ASG) 72

73 The system resets on a daily basis to allow animals to have access to another day s ration. Identification of the sows that have not finished their ration in the previous day is provided. This information can be used by stockpeople for early identification and resolution of any problems. To minimize the number of sows which fail to feed, it is important to have a systematic training programme for animals before they encounter the competition of the large group. Fitmix is a relatively new type of ESF which lacks a protective crate. It has the same management possibilities as the conventional ESF, but only protects the face of the sow while feeding. It was first designed for its space efficiency and building flexibility and it is therefore a good option for refurbishment of farms with stalls. The lack of protection while feeding makes sows divide their feed dose over significantly more visits than what is normally seen in conventional ESF, where sows may be directly or indirectly forced to finish their ration in a single visit. However, if stable groups are used, a relatively constant feeding order is established and feeding-related aggression is reduced Group housing in pens with trough or floor feeding Group housing of pregnant sows in pens with trough or floor feeding without use of individual feeding stalls are also present. Floor feeding consists of spreading the total allowance of feed from the group, either by hand or automatically (dump feeding or spin feeding). This system has two intrinsic limitations regarding to feeding; uncontrolled variation in individual feed intake and the potential for excessive feed-associated aggression. Partial barriers can divide the trough in order to reduce aggression (Figure 2.3). This can also be combined with a biological fixation system (Biofix) in which feed is simultaneously delivered individually to the sows at a very slow rate. This forces all sows to eat with the same speed so that they are fixed at each individual eating space during the whole feeding. The automatic systems are more recommended as they throw out the feed over a wider area. In this way, feeding-related competition is reduced and a more even distribution of the feed is achieved. Flooring is solid or partly slatted. Small amounts of bedding material are used on the lying area. Groups are kept stable and small (<10 animals) in order to reduce aggressive behaviour during feeding. Gilts are less dominant to each other this is why these are more often found in this type of systems than older sows. The most common social management has been matching sows of similar size and body condition in small, stable groups. 73

74 Figure 2.3. Group housing system for pregnant sows (6x6) with trough feeding. (Drawing: Herman Vermeer, ASG) Outdoors group housing This system is mostly limited to UK where about 40% of sows are housed outdoors. Sows are allowed to roam on a free-range basis with shelter being provided by huts or pig arcs. This system is cheaper to set up than indoor housing as the capital costs are about a third lower. Rotation allows the land to be rested and re-established with grass, helping to promote a disease-free environment. Sows are housed in groups of 6 sows per paddock and the overall stocking density is 9 sows per acre. The groups are stable and the feeding system is ground fed sow rolls. The bedding type is straw provided in pig arcs Boars There is scarce information on to which extent different housing conditions are applied to boars in different parts of the EU. A questionnaire referred to housing and management conditions on farms was prepared by the Experts of the EFSA Working Group of Pig Welfare and was sent to national experts of some EU countries (EFSA, 2007b). Basically, boars are housed in crates or individual pens with a space allowance from lower than 6 to higher than 10 m 2 and different enrichment such as chains, wood and ropes are provided Farrowing Sows are typically moved from dry sow to farrowing accommodation 3-7 days before the expected farrowing date (115 days after service). 74

75 Outdoor systems In outdoor systems, farrowing and lactating sows are housed in either individual or group paddocks, with access to individual farrowing huts. Systems in which breeding sows live in free-range, can only operate successfully in areas which have an appropriate soil type and climate, which limits their applicability within the EU (about 10% in France and <1% in other countries). At present, the UK is unique in farrowing a large proportion of the national sow herd in outdoor systems (currently ~40% of sows). Under semi-natural conditions, newborn piglets stay in the farrowing nest during a period averaging 10 days. After a few days, the piglets begin to follow their mother on short excursions, which is when they also have their first social contact with other piglets and animals in the group (figure 2.4). During the ensuing period and up to the age of 7 to 8 weeks, the piglets have increasing contact with and are integrated into the group. Figure 2.4. Lactating sows in outdoor systems (photo: Emma Fàbrega). 75

76 Indoor systems Farrowing crates In indoor systems, the use of farrowing crates for this period predominates (figure 2.5). While the farrowing crate has the potential to reduce piglet mortality (Cronin et al., 1996), it reduces the sow s freedom of movement and ability to perform nesting behaviour. These crates, typically 2.1 x 0.9m in size, are designed to restrict the movement of the sow and placed centrally or offset in a pen which has specialised provision for the young piglets. Flooring can be partly or fully slatted. Bedding is not commonly provided. The creep area may be a simple heat source (hanging lamp or heat pad) or may be an enclosed area to maintain higher temperature. In some member states, the use of farrowing crates is restricted to a limited period around the time of farrowing. However, in the EU as a whole, the use of farrowing crates throughout lactation is the predominant system. Figure 2.5. Farrowing crates (photo: Emma Fàbrega). Individual pens The use of individual pens for the farrowing/lactating sow and litter is common only in countries where farrowing crates are not longer allowed. These may be simple pens of approximately 2.0 x 3.0 m with anti-crushing rails around the walls and a heated creep area for the piglets figure 2.6). Traditionally the pens had access to a dunging alley with scrapes but in newer systems the floor is mostly partly slatted. Beneath the slatted flooring scrapes or liquid manure systems are used. The type of manure handling system influences the possibility to use straw during farrowing. Slats are either made of concrete, iron or a plastic 76

77 material. These pens sometimes contain a temporary crate structure made by moving a partition into place at the time of farrowing; this reduces the total space available when the sow is loose. In sow-controlled housing systems, pens are typically divided into two different areas, the nest area, which is shared by the sow and the piglets, and a restricted area to which only the sow has access by stepping over a piglet-proof barrier. This allows sows to regulate suckling rates as they might do under natural conditions by reducing the time they spend close to their litters. In these systems, the increasing absence of the sow from her litter seems to encourage the piglets to consume more creep feed prior to weaning, while also reducing suckling frequency. Although the proportion of creep feed intake was higher than in confined pens, the weight of the piglets at weaning was lower, indicating that pre-weaning growth is still mainly dependent on milk intake (Puppe and Tuchscherer, 2000; Pajor et al., 2002). Nevertheless, piglets from sow-controlled systems seem to be better prepared for the nutritional changes that occur at weaning. Pajor et al. (1999) found that during the first 2 weeks after weaning, at 35 days of age, piglets consumed more feed and gained more weight than piglets from confined pens. Figure 2.6. Scheitzer individual pen. (photo: Lluís Vila). 77

78 Group pens Sows are kept in groups (5-10) where each sow has access to an individual farrowing nest and a communal resting area, often on deep straw bedding. In this system the sows are moved to the big pen some days before farrowing and along the walls a cubicle for each sow is put up. The cubicle is about 1.75 by 2.40 m and has an entrance for the sow with a 40 cm high threshold with a 15 cm wide roller on top to prevent the udder of the sow but also to prevent the piglets from leaving the cubicle during the first week. There are no rails, creep area or heat lamp in the cubicle as it can distort the interaction between the sow and piglets during the nest phase. The nest boxes are taken out when the piglets have left the nest, usually days after farrowing Rearing After weaning, the sow is returned to the service accommodation and the piglets are either left in the farrowing pen (not very common) or more commonly, moved immediately to the weaner accommodation. After weaning, piglets are generally moved to - and mixed with - members of other litters in specially designed housing systems for weaners. This phase presents the greatest management challenge as dietetic changes are frequently associated with disease outbreaks. In order to reduce the problems associated with conventional weaning procedures, piglets can be raised as a group from birth to slaughter in the same pen. The underlying idea is that stress around weaning can be minimized, and later stress caused by regrouping is avoided. To achieve this, the sow is removed from the farrowing pen at weaning, but the litter remains in the pen during the ensuing growing period. A variety of housing systems are used for weaned piglets. Piglets are typically housed in highly controlled environments with supplementary heating in partly or fully-slated pens (figure 2.7), or raised in flat decks in groups of varying sizes (10-40). They may be moved from the first stage weaner accommodation to larger, second stage accommodation after 2-4 weeks or remain in the same pen until the age of 10 weeks (30-40 kg) or, in a few instances, until slaughter. The pen areas per pig varies from 0.2 (<20 kg) to 0.3m 2 per pig (<30 kg). Weaner pigs are typically fed ad libitum (dry) or restricted (liquid) with an animal:feeder space ratio of 1:1 to 12:1, depending on the feeding system Growing and finishing After about 5 weeks, when the piglets reach approximately 30 kg liveweight the weaned pigs are moved on to further accommodation to finish their growth prior to slaughter. A selection of individuals to fill pens in the fattening sheds is based on live weight, so members of different litters become penmates in the fattening pens. This mixing will provoke the establishment of new social hierarchies resulting in dominating and submissive behaviour. If entire (not castrated) males are becoming sexually mature at this stage, aggressive behaviour may be prolonged. 78

79 Figure 2.7. Rearing pigs in fully-slated pens (photo: Pedro Rodríguez) Outdoor/semi-outdoor rearing on earth or concrete Floor design and pen dimension greatly depend on soil characteristics, management and environmental conditions. Resting areas (indoors or kennels/huts) are typically insulated or bedded and protect pigs from adverse climatic conditions Mediterranean silvopastoral systems This traditional Mediterranean system involves indigenous breeds that are extensively pastured in natural forests for the production of high-value dry-cured hams (EFSA, 2007a). The animals are reared on farm in a traditional way, their reproductive cycles have to be respected and different breeds are selected than those used in intensive systems. The number of piglets per sow is lower, the mortality rate of piglets is higher and there is no heat control, so that production figures are not as high as in intensive systems. The production process may take from one to two years, depending on when piglets are born and how long the growing period is. Feed is an important factor in the timing of the growth process, because acorns are only available from November to March. Only animals with the right weight are fattened. Production of animals in dehesas is limited by the capacity of the ecosystem and the natural production of fodder and acorns each year. In the present situation, close to 80 extensive farms with more than 1300 reproducers of Mallorcan Black pig are recovered by the Mallorcan Black Pig Association. These animals are managed in extensive conditions and feeding regime is based on pasture, cereals, legume, figs, almonds, acorns and mediterranean schrubs (fig. 2.8). 79

80 Figure 2.8. Mediterranean pastoral systems (photo: Joel González) Indoor systems Housing with fully or partly-slatted flooring is the accommodation for fattening pigs that predominates within the EU. Traditionally, fattening pigs are housed in groups of 10-15, but recently the number of fattening units with large group sizes (24 pigs up to 40 and more) on perforated floors is increasing. Large group sizes are also typical for deep litter system (EFSA, 2007a). Feed might be provided either wet or dry. Feed is increasingly distributed automatically to sensor controlled liquid feeders or slop feeders (semi-liquid) with an animal feeding place ratio of max. 12:1. Dry feed is often given ad libitum from one or more hoppers, although feed may be restricted in the later stages to prevent excessive fatness of unimproved genotypes or with very heavy slaughter weights (>120 kg). Fully-slated floor Slatted housing systems are widely used throughout the EU and in all other significant pig producing countries in the industrialized world. In these systems, slats cover the entire pen area, usually to maintain hygiene. Foraging material, if used, is small in quantity. From a technical point of view, flooring in unbedded systems should have sufficient perforation or slot-width to keep the pen clean from manure and urine. The construction and design requirements for concrete slats are that of highest exposure class. Recommendations about design are to be found mainly for concrete and metal slatted floor 80

81 constructions with less information for other (mainly plastic compound) constructions. The use of polymer and composite materials is increasing. One vital component for the successful use of slatted flooring is the proportions of the floor solid and slot dimensions in relation to the dimensions of the feet of the pig at any given age. However, even the construction profile is critical: sharp edges may cause cut injuries as well as a compressive stress when the loading force will exceed the strength of the digits (EFSA, 2007a). The lack of elasticity, besides softness, of hard flooring material such as metal constructions, is another critical characteristic and may explain the increased level of lesions (EFSA, 2007a). Slatted flooring can contribute substantially to the cleanliness and health of an animal by allowing for the speedy removal of faecal and urinary products from the immediate environment of the animal, and thus assisting the provision of a dry lying area. Slatted systems generally give lower airborne endotoxin concentrations than litter based systems, due to bacterial contamination of straw and other litter materials. The possible use of straw is strictly limited with fully-slatted floors. Usual characteristics: Pen floor area per pig: 0.4 m 2 (growing), m 2 (finishing). Concrete slats with 17 mm slot spacing. Pig: feeder place ratio 1:1 up to 12:1 depending on the feeding system (fig. 2.9). Partly-slatted floor Pens with partly-slatted floors may require more space allowance than fully-slatted floors. Partly-slatted floor systems need to provide enough space for pigs to be able to maintain separate and distinct lying and dunging areas, so that the solid portion of the floor and the pigs can be kept clean. Some pens are therefore equipped with two floor types that differ in the degree of perforation (i.e. 40% vs. 10 %; the area with lower perforation intended for lying) in order to reduce the risk for reduced cleanliness. Partly-slatted flooring may reduce emission of ammonia and other gases released from them excreta, and if correctly designed and well-drained, can lower emissions considerably. Partly slatted floor systems, preferably with a raised level of the slatted part, allow for a fairly good supply of straw. Usual characteristics: Pen floor area per pig: 0.4 m 2 (growing), m 2 (finishing). Concrete slats with 17 mm slot spacing. Pig: feeder place ratio 1:1 up to 12:1 depending on the feeding system. 81

82 Figure 2.9. ASG) Housing system for finishing pigs (6x20) ( kg). (Drawing: Herman Vermeer, Deep litter system Deep bedding (> cm bedding) with bedding materials such as straw, saw dust, wood chips, peat etc. usually have a solid concrete floor underneath, although even a slatted floor may be used for drainage purposes of the litter bedding. The use of a deep bedding system demands good facilities for removing the bedding and cleaning/disinfecting in a strict batch system. Provision of straw, especially straw of poor quality, and the use of wood chips and saw dust, will increase the production of airborne particles such as dust, moulds and fungi associated with respiratory disturbances in pigs and humans (EFSA, 2007a). The deep litter system has disadvantages in increased emissions of, among other things, ammonia, nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen and methane. The amount of nitrogen excreted by the pigs will emit to the atmosphere up to % depending upon type of bedding, temperature and other storage conditions (EFSA, 2007a). In insulated buildings (and during summer periods in uninsulated ones) the UCT (upper critical temperature) of the deep bedding systems, especially when the bedding is burning and producing a large amount of heat, may be critical in creating thermoregulatory problems, resulting in heat stress and decreased performance; the heat production will also lead to an increased evaporation of water (EFSA, 2007a). Deep straw bedding for pigs from weaning to 10 weeks (20-30 kg) and from 10 weeks (20 30 kg) to slaughter ( kg) may take place with a wide variation of pen designs, feeding and 82

83 management systems. The group size is usually more than 30 pigs with an area of at least 0.5 m2 and 1.0 m2 per weaner and grower, respectively. The use of straw is approximately 1 kg per kg live weight gain. (EFSA, 2007a). Usual characteristics: Pen floor area per pig: 0.5 m 2 (growing), m 2 (finishing). Straw bedded deep litter pen with elevated feeding area. Pig: feeder place ratio 1:1 up to 12:1 depending on the feeding system Main a-specific management procedures in Europe A-specific aspects of housing and management Mutilations Tail docking Within the PIGCAS project (2008) that studied the extent of practice of castration in male and female pigs, the extent of tail docking was also assessed. In Switzerland, Finland, Norway and Sweden, tail docking is not performed at all. In addition, a minor percentage of the respondents in Slovenia, Hungary, Poland and Estonia reported that tail docking is not performed (Figure 2.10). In the remaining countries, tail docking seems to be performed on most farms, either before castration or at the same time as castration. It is very seldom performed after castration. In the EU, neither tail-docking nor reduction of corner teeth must be carried out routinely but only where there is evidence that injuries to sows teats or to other pigs ears or tails have occurred. Before carrying out these procedures, other measures shall be taken to prevent tail-biting and other vices, taking into account environment and stocking densities. For this reason inadequate environmental conditions or management systems must be changed (Council Directive 2008/120/EC). Castration In most of the European countries, castration is performed on % of the male pigs in conventional production (Figure 2.11). The exceptions are United Kingdom and Ireland where castration is hardly performed at all. Also, in some of the southern countries (Cyprus, Portugal and Spain), a limited percentage of the male pigs is castrated. In these countries, meat from castrates is mainly used for export and production of high quality cured products. Also, in Greece production of entire males seems to be rather common (24%). In most countries, there seems to be little difference between the percentages of piglets castrated in conventional and non-conventional production systems (Figure 2.12). The exceptions to this are the Netherlands, where there exists a non-conventional production system called Milieukeur where no castration is performed at all, and Spain and Portugal, where an extensive production system exists where all piglets are castrated. 83

84 Figure Incidence of tail docking in piglets. The results are given as the average of answers within each country. Source: PIGCAS (2008). Figure Percentage of male pigs (conventional production) castrated per country, given as the average of answers given within each country. Source: PIGCAS (2008). 84

85 Figure Percentage of male pigs castrated per country in conventional, organic and other production systems, given as the average of answers given within each country. Source: PIGCAS (2008). Figure Incidence of teeth resection in piglets. Results are given as the average of answers given within each country. Source: PIGCAS (2008). 85

86 Teeth resection Teeth resection is reported to be performed on the majority of animals in most countries except Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Italy (Figure 2.13). But there might be some confusion about the term teeth resection, whether this only includes cases were the tooth pulp is uncovered or whether it also includes grinding. When it is performed, it is most commonly done before castration (probably most commonly just after birth), but it is also quite commonly performed at the same day as castration Climate Temperature is the most important physical environment variable that can affect the welfare of pigs. The domestic pig has very sparse thermal protection offered by hair. Most of its insulation is given by the thick layer of subcutaneous fat. The sparse hair cover allows evaporation from the skin, but as pigs do not sweat when they are exposed to heat, body cooling is based on wallowing or skin wetting. Pigs are well equipped with behavior responses to cold temperature. It also seems that pigs do not suffer greatly from being exposed to rain. If temperature gets too high animals need possibilities to cool down. In pigs, this may lead to higher ammonia levels in the air, soiling of animals and the lying area, so that the separation of dunging area and lying area no longer works. Showers can be used for cooling the animals, to replace the natural wallowing behaviour in pigs. Pigs not suffer greatly from being exposed to sunshine, but they often get their skin burned when kept outdoors for a long time in summer. In contrast, pigs greatly dislike to remain exposed to wind (EFSA, 2007a) Human-animal relationship Stall housed sows are not handled routinely, but they are in regular visual, olfactory and auditory contact with caretakers who do their daily inspection rounds. The occasions during which physical contact is applied are limited to moving sows to and from their stall, when they are treated for illnesses or when they are checked for pregnancy or oestrus. Poor humananimal interactions during this period may result in high fear responses to humans and a chronic physiological stress response (EFSA, 2007b). Growing-finishing pigs interact with people during the G-F period. People can have significant effects on the pig s welfare. Human interactions can take many forms during the G-F period. Pigs may have no human contact, or neutral, positive or negative human contact. Pigs respond to humans differently depending on their previous experiences. Pigs may have a sensitive period early in life (for example, during the early G-F period or during suckling). Positive human interaction during early life improves pig handling later in life (Hemsworth et al., 1986). Negative/aversive human contact includes being abusive to pigs intentionally or non-intentionally to such a degree that pigs are fearful of human interaction. If pigs expect a painful experience when they interact with people, then they will naturally become fearful of people. One problem with assessing pig fearfulness is that pigs with no human contact are also fearful of people. Thus fearful pigs are caused by one or two often indistinguishable causes: lack of human contact or negative human interactions. Terlouw and Porcher (2005) found that when pigs are in presence of a human they want to touch or interact with the human, even if this contact is consistently refused. 86

87 Nutritional Breeding sows are commonly fed to maintain a relatively constant body condition throughout the reproductive cycle for good health and optimal performance. This involves a restriction of feed intake during gestation to prevent excessive body weight gain and fat deposition, as these cause farrowing and locomotion problems and subsequently lower reproductive performance. Pregnant sows typically receive their whole daily feed in one or two small, concentrated meals that are rapidly consumed. The usual restricted feeding level, whilst adequate to meet nutrient needs of sows and maximize economic performance, might not fulfil sows appetite and their need to express feeding behaviours (Rushen et al., 1993). Indeed, the level of feed provided corresponds to about 0.40 to 0.60 of the voluntary intake (Brouns et al., 1995), which results in a low level of satiety and a reduced performance of appetitive and consummatory sequences of the feeding behaviour. A low feeding level has been linked to the occurrence of stereotyped activities, which are described as behavioural patterns performed repetitively in fixed order and with no apparent function. These behaviours are more prevalent in the immediate post-feeding period, and have been attributed to the limited nutrient supply in combination with the reduced access to a foraging substrate in stalled or group-housed sows (Spoolder et al., 1995). Restricted feeding supply also leads to feeding competition in group-fed sows. In addition to injuries and stress imposed on sows, this competition in feeding situations results in unequal intake between sows within the group, which has detrimental effects on body reserves, especially for the low-ranking animals (Signoret et al., 1995). This is one of the major reasons why sows are usually housed in stalls during gestation Breeding aspects Genetic selection focuses on increasing productivity with pig breeding programmes traditionally favouring high growth rates, high levels of lean meat in the carcass and high feed conversion efficiency. However, this selection can have negative side effects on welfare problems like leg weakness, cardiovascular problems and fearfulness for humans (EFSA, 2007a). Other factors related to health have also been considered and one positive effect of breeding has been the dramatic reduction of the incidence of the ryanodine receptor gene (halothane gene) in most of the EU Group formation Growing pigs The mixing of unacquainted pigs has adverse effects on welfare. Adverse effects include physiological consequences as aggressive interactions. Most aggressive interactions are typically shown during the first few hours after grouping. The frequency, duration and intensity of aggression interactions after mixing varies depending on several variables, such as enrichment of the environment, whether food is provided as ad libitum or restricted and time of day when pigs are mixed. It has been shown that socialised piglets, piglets that have been mixed with piglets from another litter before weaning, learn social skills that allow them to more rapidly form stable hierarchies when regrouped after weaning (EFSA, 2007a). Pregnant sows 87

88 Social management attempts to reduce regrouping aggression, the social tension within a group on an ongoing basis, and may be used to achieve some degree of control over feed intake in those systems where individual control of feed intake is not possible. Social management includes a number of techniques, but the major considerations are the frequency of regrouping, sorting and group size (Gonyou, 2003). Management possibilities will be highly conditioned by herd size. - Frequency of regrouping: some degree of regrouping will occur in all systems. A typical breeding group (all females bred close in time) will include sows that have been weaned and bred on their first oestrus, late or repeat breeders, and replacement gilts. These three subgroups are usually unfamiliar to each other but may find they are grouped together for gestation. If animals are grouped together once, and no additional animals are added to the group for the remained of the gestation, it is called stable or static group. The alternative to static groups is dynamic grouping, whereby new sows are added to the group on a regular basis to replace those removed for farrowing. Aggression related to the frequent regrouping may be deleterious for welfare. However, dynamic grouping is necessary to maintain large groups unless the overall herd size is very large. - Sorting: sorting sows is probably necessary to operate systems where individual control of feed intake is not possible. They are usually sorted by size and body condition. In this way, they are indirectly sorted by nutritional requirements and feed intake rate. Gilts are recommended to be kept in separate groups throughout their first gestation in all the systems regardless of feed control. Because of size difference and lack of experience, they are likely to be frequently attacked and thus, unable to adapt, especially in complex systems such as ESF. - Group size: it varies from a few up to several hundred of animals. It depends on herd size and decisions made on static vs. dynamic management, sorting and feeding system. A fairly common management approach using ESF is to operate dynamic groups of mature sows in groups of more than 200 animals which share several feeder stations. The feeder stations are programmed to sort animals out when they are ready to move to farrowing. Fitmix is typically managed with static groups, variable in size. Systems where individual control of feed intake is not possible are typically managed with small static groups, often less than 10 sows. Adoption of large groups involves a lower capital cost in terms of space and facilities, but management may be more difficult Geographical distribution In 2008, the 27 EU countries housed million of pigs, of which 98.0 million were fattening pigs (from 20 kg to more than 110 kg), 14.0 million were sows and 0.29 million were boars. About two thirds of these pigs were housed in five countries: Germany (17.5%), Spain (17.2%), France (9.7%), Poland (9.3%) and Denmark (8.0%). Table 2.1 shows the distribution of pigs by country. Table 2.2 shows the corresponding numbers of holdings. There is scarce data about distribution of pig housing systems in Europe. Regarding pregnant and lactating sows, the SVC (1997) published some data about pregnant and lactating sows housing in some European countries (Table 2.3). Regarding, weaned and fattening pigs, the most recent information can be found in Hendriks and van de Weerdhof (1999) (Tables

89 and 2.5). Some of these data will be updated by the Q-pork chains project that aims to perform an inventory of existing production systems (at farm level) in Europe. Table 2.1. Total pigs Country ( 000) Austria Belarus Belgium Czech republic Denmark France Germany Hungary Ireland Italy Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Spain United Kingdom Numbers of pigs in countries together holding 95% of the European pig population (EUROSTAT, 2008; FAOSTAT, 2008). Piglets with a live weight <20 kg ( 000) Pigs with a live weight >20 kg and <50 kg ( 000) Fattening pigs between 50 and <80 kg ( 000) Fattening pigs between 80 and <110 kg ( 000) Boars ( 000) Sows ( 000) Table 2.2. Numbers of pigs holdings in Europe (EUROSTAT, 2005) Country Austria Belarus Belgium Czech republic Denmark France Germany Hungary Ireland Italy Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Spain United Kingdom Total pigs holders ( 000) Sows holders ( 000) Pigs for fattening holders ( 000) Pigs in organic farming (total) Table 2.3. Distribution of housing systems for pregnant and lactating sows in European countries (adapted from SVC, 1997) Countries 89

90 The France Italy Denmark UK* Spain** Pregnant sows Netherlands Sows confined (%) Sows in crates (%) (0) 80 Sows in group housing (%) Lactating sows Sows confined (%) Sows in crates (%) (60) 98 Sows loose with piglets (%) 1 9 * *** * Between brackets expert opinion ** Data from Spain based on experts estimates (2009) *** Outdoor housing. Table 2.4. Distribution of housing systems for weaned pigs (weaning to kg) in European countries (pigs x 1000; Adapted from Hendriks and van de Weerdhof., 1999, on the basis of data from a questionnaire collected between 1996 and 1998, EAAP working group Future Housing and Management for Pigs ). Without/restricted straw With straw Partly-slatted Fully-slatted Fully solid concrete Countries Piglets % Tr. Piglets % Tr. Piglets % Tr. Belgium Increas. * Decr Steady Denmark Increas Decr Steady France Steady Increas Decr. Germany Decr Increas Steady Greece Decr Increas. Hungary 21 5 Decr Increas. Ireland Decr Increas. Italy Decr Increas Decr. Netherlands Increas Decr. Portugal Increas Increas Increas. Spain Steady Increas Steady UK Increas Steady Steady Total Steady Increas Steady Increas. * Increas.: increasing; Decr.: decreasing. 90

91 Table 2.5. Distribution of housing systems for fattening pigs in European countries (pigs x 1000; from the Dutch BAT Reference Notes, 1999) Adapted from Hendriks and van de Weerdhof., 1999, on the basis of data from a questionnaire collected between 1996 and 1998, EAAP working group Future Housing and Management for Pigs ). Without/restricted straw With straw Partly-slatted Fully-slatted Solid concrete Solid concrete Deep litter Countries Pigs % Tr Pigs % Tr Pigs % Tr Pigs % Tr Pigs % Tr. Belgium In. * De St St. Denmark In De St St. Finland?? De.? In. France St In St De. Germany De In In St. Greece De In. Hungary De In. Ireland De In St. Italy St In De. Netherlands In De In. Portugal St St St. Spain St In. Switzerland In De In. UK In In De St. Total In In De In De. Systems without/restricted straw St. Systems with St. straw * In.: increasing; St.: steady; De.: decreasing Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare Sows Sows exhibit fear or stress responses in several occasions during their reproductive life e.g. when moved to an unfamiliar or restricted environment, mixed with unfamiliar sows after weaning or before farrowing or submitted to feeding competition. Difficulties that animals may experience when coping with these stressful events are assessed by biological stress responses (e.g. endocrine, immune, opioid systems) and behavioural disturbances (Broom, 1996). Stall-housed animals show moderate or no increase in basal free cortisol concentrations and responsiveness to ACTH challenge, compared to pigs housed in groups (Jensen et al., 1996; Pol et al., 2002; Barnett et al., 2001). However, group housing systems ease most of the disadvantages of stalls because sows have more exercise, more control over their environment, more opportunity for normal social interactions and better potential for the provision of opportunities to root or manipulate materials. The major disadvantages of group housing are stress, injuries (such as bites to the vulva or skin associated to fighting, fact that could lead to embryo loss in extreme cases) and a higher possibility of disease transmission due to a higher contact among animals. Moreover, detection of health problems and individual feeding (at least in some systems) is more difficult Piglets 91

92 Among the variables influencing the welfare of neonatal piglets, the thermal environment is one of the most important factors to consider. Newborn piglets have low body fat and energy reserves, a lack of coat hair, a large surface area to body mass ratio and an insufficient ability to thermoregulate after birth. Neonates therefore have an urgent need for a thermoneutral environmental temperature. Lower than recommended temperatures cause substantial mobilization of energy stores, such as glycogen in the liver and skeletal muscles, with negative effects on the growth rate. Hypothermia in newborn piglets also has detrimental health effects, increasing the incidence of various diseases and ultimately contributing to increased mortality (Aumaitre and Le Dividich, 1984; Geers et al., 1989). In outdoor systems, depending on the geographic region, farrowing huts may need additional insulation to avoid extensive cooling during winter and overheating in summer. A major cause of piglet mortality is due to sows lying on their pigs, causing them to be crushed. Almost 80% of this mortality occurs during parturition and within the first 3 to 4 d of life and it is during the first 48 h after farrowing that the majority of crushing deaths occur. There is much variation in piglet mortality, and most studies comparing mortality rates in different farrowing systems have been done with a rather small or moderate sample size which makes difficult to draw a conclusion whether loose farrowing systems can be as productive as crate systems (EFSA, 2007a). Recently, Weber et al. (2007) analysed performance data of 482 farms (44837 farrowings) using farrowing crates and 173 farms (18824 farrowings) using loose farrowing systems. They found that the number of crushed piglets was higher in pens with loose-housed sows (0.62 versus 0.52 piglets per litter), whereas the number of piglets that died for other reasons was higher in crates (0.78 versus 0.89 piglets per litter). Traumatic injuries to the limbs and feet of piglets have been reported as a common problem in many piggeries. These lesions have been observed in the first days of life and increase during the first week. Skin abrasions and sole bruising are thought to be related to floor surface characteristics such as abrasiveness and firmness. The prevalence of skin lesions was found to be similar for solid concrete and rubber mats, which were generally intended to improve comfort conditions. Concrete floors caused higher numbers of small wounds, whereas rubber mats resulted in deeper and larger wounds (Gravas, 1979). The incidence of sole bruising was higher on mesh floors, and the prevalence of skin abrasions was higher with mesh floors, wood shavings and uneven surfaces (Mouttotou et al., 1999). On slatted floors, slot width is a matter of concern for piglet safety; slot width must not exceed 10 mm because of the risk of piglets legs becoming trapped and the associated claw damage. In addition, the sharp edges of slats or the shape of mesh floors can cause extensive damage to the legs. Secondary infections associated with such leg injuries can impair the piglets health and increase morbidity. The abrupt weaning process also causes substantial problems for the piglets, which are confronted with maternal deprivation, nutritional changes, new housing conditions and unfamiliar piglets at the same time. It has been shown that newly weaned piglets appear to have more problems coping with a new housing environment than coping with a changed social environment (Puppe et al., 1997). The avoidance of environmental and social disturbances, such as transport and mixing, has been found to result in higher weight gains, less lesions caused by aggressive interactions, improved cellular immunity and reduced salivary cortisol levels after weaning, indicating beneficial effects on performance, health and 92

93 welfare (Ekkel et al., 1995). Numerous studies have shown that the practice of abrupt weaning under intensive housing conditions may cause subsequent behavioural responses that are potentially responsible for the development of serious psychobiological disturbances and welfare problems (review by Held and Mendl, 2001). For example, experimentally induced intermittent maternal deprivation and social isolation of piglets resulted in decreased emotional reactivity, increased stress hormones and suppressed immune responses (Kanitz et al., 2004). Additionally, it was found that abrupt weaning is associated with growth setback, elevated levels of stress hormones and suppression of immune functions causing increased disease susceptibility (Kanitz et al., 2002). The abrupt weaning of piglets in commercial pig production often comprises mixing with unfamiliar animals in a new environment, a situation generally accompanied by an increase in circulating stress hormones (Mason et al., 2003; Merlot et al., 2004). The establishment of a social hierarchy within the new group leads to physical encounters and aggressive interactions which can impair animal welfare and performance through their stressful impacts and through injuries arising from fights. The faster a stable social hierarchy is established, the fewer negative impacts there should be on animal welfare. The routine management of tail docking, ear notching, tooth clipping and castration may pose major welfare problems leading to fear, stress and potential suffering. Tail docking, teeth clipping and ear notching induce moderate but transient behavioural changes during and immediately after the procedures (Prunier et al., 2002). In all cases, piglets exhibited some degree of distress as evidenced by vocalizations and struggling that began as soon as they were picked up, indicating that restraint itself is a stressor. Specific procedures gave rise to specific behaviours in piglets: tail docking caused tail jamming and wagging; ear notching caused mainly head shaking; and teeth clipping tended to cause teeth champing (Noonan et al., 1994). These behavioural responses normally disappear a few minutes after the procedure, and no long-term effects on behaviour or stress hormone responses were reported (Prunier et al., 2002). Surgical procedures during castration mainly alter acoustical measures (e.g. call duration, peak frequency, purenesss and entropy of the sound), which describe vocal quality rather than quantity (Puppe et al., 2005). Nevertheless, the observed changes in acoustical parameters during the surgical period of castration can be interpreted as vocal indicators of experienced pain and suffering. This is supported by physiological investigations which demonstrate a strong activation of the pituitary-adrenocortical stress axis in piglets undergoing surgical castration without anaesthesia and analgesia (Prunier et al., 2005) Growing-Finishing pigs There are many reasons to consider alternative finishing systems such as outdoors or deepbedded swine finishing systems. There have been reports of greater incidence of foot and leg problems associated with pigs housed on concrete flooring compared to alternative systems (Gentry et al., 2002). Pigs are placed in alternative systems at the time of weaning, and may remain in the same environment until processing. This reduces the stressors that are commonly associated with mixing unfamiliar pigs, handling and moving. Pigs on bedding show less tail biting, have fewer foot pad lesions (Gentry et al., 2002), have fewer leg problems, and tend to have fewer respiratory problems than pigs on slatted flooring (McGlone, 1999). However, just because pigs are kept outdoors does not mean their welfare is automatically better than indoor-kept pigs. Outdoor environments can be harsh in temperature extremes or in sanitation (varying from very clean to very dirty). 93

94 Pigs have a high curiosity and have well developed exploratory behaviour. In a seminatural environment pigs spent the greatest proportion of time active (up to 75%) in exploratory behaviour. In the absence of appropriate substrate to explore pigs redirect their exploratory behaviour to pen structures and the bodies of pen mates (belly-nosing, biting and massaging of littermates, ear and tail-biting) (EFSA, 2007a). In addition to the quality of space, insufficient quantity is also a risk factor for animal welfare. Current intensive husbandry systems offer less space than is needed for pigs to perform basic behaviours such as lying, walking, dunging and feeding in an appropriate way. In particular pigs in the final stages of the finishing period are often housed at too high stocking densities. EFSA (2005) recommends a space allowance equivalent to 0.82 m 2 for a 110 kg pig under thermo neutral conditions. If temperature increases, above 21 o C, more space is needed for pigs to lie separately from each other, and increase lateral lying for maximum contact with the cool floor. It has been estimated that for full recumbent lying, a finishing pig of 110 kg requires 1.08 m 2 (EFSA, 2005). The legal requirement in EU legislation is to provide a mimum of 0.65 m 2. This space allowance has been adopted by most members states in their own legislation. 94

95 3. Sheep At the European level, the main purpose of sheep breeds varies greatly but keeps a certain relationship with the geographical area. According to Simon and Buchenauer (1993), sheep breeds in Northern Europe have, with the exception of the milk-producing East Friesian Milchschaf, an orientation towards meat production, producing heavy carcasses up to 20 kg. In Mediterranean Europe milk breeds for cheese production are found that, in many cases, produce a very light suckling lamb, with a 4 to 7 kg carcass-and meat breeds that normally produce lambs with a 10 to 15 kg carcass. Few milk sheep production units are to be found in significant numbers outside the Mediterranean regions although milk sheep systems traditionally exist in Slovakia, for example. In Eastern Europe, there are breeds whose main purpose is either milk, meat or wool. Concerning the genetic potential, it should be highlighted that the diversity of small ruminant breeds is very important in Mediterranean countries, especially in France and Italy for sheep breeds. The European sheep breeds were grouped by Simon and Buchenauer (1993) according to the wool characteristics, geographical origins, type of use and genetic background into eight groups: Merino, Continental Longwool, British Longwool, Shortwool and Down, Milksheep, Heath, Mountain and local Coarsewool group Description of common husbandry systems in Europe The management of sheep will vary depending on the product to be harvested from the animals and the country in which they are raised. For example, milk sheep are managed so that they can be milked twice a day whereas wool sheep only have to be shorn once per year. Within different countries, financial, cultural and climatic differences affect such management factors as the numbers of animals supervised by one person and whether the sheep are kept outdoors all year round or spend some time indoors (Kilgour et al., 2008). Three major management systems are used for sheep production: extensive production for wool and meat, intensive dairy production, and traditional pastoralism (Kilgour et al., 2008). Between these farming systems there is a wide scope of mixed systems such as summer pasture/winter indoors or alternatively indoors/outdoors subject to climatic differences. But, actually, for each of these systems, the level of intensification is very variable, such as, for example, in pasture systems based on cultivated pasture versus poor rangelands. In regards to indoor systems, the level of intensification is tightly linked with the nutritive value of fodders as well as the quantity of distributed concentrates Extensive management systems Extensive management systems for sheep production are the most common in all sheep producing countries, and extend from lowland farming systems where relatively small flocks graze fenced enclosures to rangeland management systems where large flocks live on unfenced pastures (fig. 3.1). Flock size, the ratio of sheep to shepherds and specific management practices follow local norms and it would be impossible here to give a complete overview of the diverse practices in operation. Sheep farmers manage their available pasture by choosing the daily duration of grazing, the stocking rate of animals per unit of area, the grass height for moving the animals to another pasture, continuous or rotational grazing, etc. 95

96 Figure 3.1. Extensive management systems (photos: Ester Molina). 96

97 Intensive management systems Sheep are rarely kept exclusively in the intensive management systems that are found with other farmed species. Lambs bred for meat may live in intensive finishing systems for a short period when they will be housed in groups but do not receive the same degree of physical restriction, even then, that may experience other species like laying hens or sows. The main more intensive system that sheep may be managed under is in dairy sheep. In 2005, 8.5 million tonnes of sheep milk was produced, half of which was produced in the Mediterranean basin. In this region alone, there are about 40 million milk-producing sheep which are milked twice a day throughout a three- to six- month lactation period. Dairy ewes produce up to 600 l of milk per lactation and, although there is a growing market for whole milk, sheep milk is particularly suited to cheese-making (Kilgour et al., 2008). Although buildings are essential for lambing and milking, sheep can live outdoors all year round and, where possible, live almost entirely at pasture. However, there is great variation in the intensiveness of sheep dairying in different regions. There are milking regions where sheep milk production is based in a pasture system. In others intensive systems have been developed where the animals may be fully housed and fed silage, cereals and a high protein feed, such as whole lupins, cottonseed or soybean meal (fig. 3.2) and it is also possible that dairy sheep may be kept indoors during lambing and milking period on the farm, and out of these periods on pasture (part outdoor, part indoor systems) (Kilgour et al., 2008) Traditional pastoral management systems Pastoralism is the main production system of semi-arid open rangelands. These marginal areas have unpredictable climates, determined either by rainfall or elevation, and are unfavourable for agricultural cropping, so allowing pastoralism to compete. Nomadic or migrant forms of pastoralism, by exploting the inherent variability in these areas, allow sustainable livestock production and support more people than would be possible by other strategies. Pastoralism can be categorised by the degree of movement into three main classes (Kilgour et al., 2008): - Nomadic: is a highly mobile and flexible system of seasonal migration with no established home base. Movements are opportunistic, following pasture and water availability, so are highly dependent on the growth cycles of different plant species. - Transhumance: This form of migration involves regular movement about fixed points. Transhumance can consist of vertical migrations in montain areas, which tend to be ancient routes associated with high rainfall regions. Horizontal transhumance tends to be more opportunistic, and can be altered by climate as well as economic or political change along the migration routes. - Agropastoralism: This differs from the other two not only by the degree of movement, but also because other forms of pastoralism occur at the subsistence level, where the animal products maintain the family group and are not kept for commercial profit, although some trade may occur. The other main differences are a greater provision of supplementary feeding, fenced ranges and land tenure. 97

98 Figure 3.2. Intensive management systems (photos: Ester Molina). 98

99 3.2. Main a-specific management procedures in Europe A-specific aspects of housing and management Mutilations Castration This is a technique which provides benefit primarily to the management of the enterprise, through avoiding unwanted mating and the birth of early lambs or lambs of poor genetic merit. As adults, castrated males are easier to handle than entire sheep (this may deliver a minor benefit to the individuals concerned of being less stressed during handling) and are less prone to fighting. More generally, castrated animals may also have more desirable carcase characteristics and in some situations such animals may be sold when older and heavier without a decline in carcase quality. A range of techniques can be applied. Common ones include the use of rubber (elastrator) rings to restrict the blood supply to the scrotum and its contents or the surgical approach using a knife to open the scrotum to allow the testicles to be removed by traction. Tail docking Tail docking of lambs is performed in order to reduce the risk of blowfly strike as the breech area is less likely to become soiled by faeces and urine. There are many situations where tail docking is not undertaken in extensive hill flocks for example where fly strike is less of a problem and the tail may provide added thermal insulation in cold weather. Otherwise it remains a common technique. Fly strike (and subseqüent myiasis) is considered to be a very painful and debilitating condition which, if untreated, may result in death. Thus it represents a serious welfare problem which must be addressed and is considered unacceptable by many farmers and members of the public. Graham et al. (1997) found the use of a hot iron to be the least painful method. Currently analgesia is not usually provided Human-animal relationship Different management systems may expose sheep to different amounts of human contact. There are many general activities which relate to gathering/mustering and handling. The methods adopted are varied and depend on the flock size and the terrain and area over which the animals range. Lambing time is often one of the key points at which human-animal interactions have an especially important impact. In more intensive systems, the stockperson has regular contact which allows timely intervention if difficulties arise. Recent observations suggest that, in some extensive systems, human intervention at lambing time may have mixed effects: for sheep unused to human involvement, such intervention may prolong parturition, potentially disadvantage the ewe and reduce lamb survival through a variety of mechanisms. 99

100 Breeding aspects Dairy sheep The situation of the selection programmes are coherent, to a certain extent, with that of dairy recording, with very consolidated programmes in France, particularly in the Lacaune breed where selection affects large part of the population, with more than 50% of the ewes inseminated every year. In other countries, such as Spain or Italy, great efforts are being made in some breeds to establish these selection programmes, but it still involve only a small proportion of individuals in each breed, since, generally, artificial insemination is not very widespread. It must be pointed out however, that a large number of head of both rams and ewes are used in selection bases for these programmes, with normally more than 50 rams submitted to progeny testing every year, thus minimizing the risk of inbreeding. Meat sheep Concerning selection programmes, only in Norway, Sweden, France and UK are they developed. Regarding artifical insemination, this is hardly established in meat sheep, apart from in France Climate Movement of sheep from one environment to another, whether this is from pasture to indoors, from a valley to the mountains, from a cold to a hot climate, can cause disturbance and stress. In the North European countries the most common environmental stressor the sheep is likely to face will be cold (often increased by precipitation and wind-chill), although sheep without shade in South European countries, may be more likely to suffer from heat stress. Sheep are well adapted to cope with both extremes. Food availability, and consequent malnutrition, can be a serious problem particularly for pregnant ewes, which are carrying lambs through the winter when food is most likely to be scarce Geographical distribution The total EU population of sheep is 90,078,000 animals (EUROSTAT, 2008). Considering the size of the national populations, UK and Spain are leaders in sheep flocks (Table 3.1). As commented before, the management of sheep will vary depending on the product to be harvested from the animals and the country in which they are raised (de Rancourt et al., 2006): 100

101 Table 3.1. Total sheep Country ( 000) Austria Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Sweden Spain Switzerland United Kingdom Numbers of sheep (EUROSTAT 2008; FAOSTAT, 2008) and number of sheep holdings (EUROSTAT 2003) in countries together holding 99.9% of the European sheep population. Ewes and ewe-lambs put to the ram ( 000) Milk ewes and milk ewe-lambs put to the ram ( 000) Other ewes and ewelambs put to the ram ( 000) Other sheep ( ooo) Total holdings ( 000) Sheep in organic farming (total) Spanish production systems Several sheep systems can be found in Spain depending on the natural conditions and the product specialisation. - Northern mountainous systems like Cantabria and the Pyrenean mountains The climate is oceanic (precipitation over 800 mm/year) and the sheep are mainly kept for milk production. Flocks are usually small and semi-intensive operated units, utilizing with grass grazing complemented indoors with concentrates. Many flocks use summer transhumance in mountains. The yield ranges from 50 to 100 l per ewe and year on average and the lambs are sold at 3 5 weeks of age and with a carcass between 5 and 8 kg. - Castilla y Leon systems The climate is continental (precipitation below 600 mm/year) and the sheep are mainly kept for milk production. They traditionally produce a very light lamb called Lechazo (around 5 kg of carcass). Flocks are usually medium-sized and semi-intensive for the Churra, and semiextensive for the Castellana which is a hardier breed. However, Assaf and Awassi are developing rapidly with more intensive systems going to zerograzing (Unifeed systems) (Caja and de Rancourt, 2002). The yield is around 120 l per ewe and year on the average. -Castilla la Mancha systems 101

102 The climate is Mediterranean (precipitation below 500 mm/year) and the sheep are mainly kept for milk production. They traditionally produce a medium-sized lamb called Pascual (10 12 kg of carcass). Flocks are usually large in size and are farmed semiintensively with the general use of the Manchega for the Manchego cheese. The yield is around 70 l per ewe and year on the average. -Extremadura systems The climate is between Mediterranean and oceanic (precipitation below 500 mm/year) and the sheep are mainly kept for meat production. But the main regional breed (Merino) can be milked after having weaned the lamb at around 3 months. The Pascual lambs carcasses are ranging from 9 to 14 kg. Those Merino systems are usually extensive, going frequently to total outdoor systems, grazing the pasture under oak cover (Dehesa eco-system). The average milk yield is around 50 l. As in Castilla y Leon, we observe the development of intensive breeds like Lacaune or Assaf with yields over 100 l. -Aragon systems The climate is rather Mediterranean and the region tends to emphasize meat production. Systems have rapidly moved to intensive large flocks (some have more than 10,000 ewes), focussed on lamb productivity and the use of the Aragonesa breed, leaving room sometimes for the Lacaune breed. The traditional lamb produced is the Ternasco de Aragon with carcasses from 8.5 to 11.5 kg. French production systems Three main sheep systems can be described in the French Mediterranean regions, depending on the natural and market conditions. -The itinerant grazing sheep system Near the Mediterranean coast on plain areas (typically the Crau region), the aim of this system is to reduce the supply costs and migrate in harmony with the forage availability. This system is extensive and work demanding for keeping the flock. The farmer often owns only the animals and dogs and rents grazing. He migrates from the coastal plain in winter to mountains during the summer. Lambs are diverse from light ones (Spanish Ternasco type) to heavier and older ones ( grazers coming back from mountains). -The dry hill sheep system In dry hilly areas of Provence or Languedoc Roussillon regions, those systems are characterized by grazing extensively in summer on low fertility fields or in oak woods (similar in some way to the Spanish Dehesa systems). To reach forage self-sufficiency, they store forage for winter from more intensive fields which often need irrigation. The sheep usually spend four months inside. They produce the usual type of lamb for the South of France, at kg of carcass, and 120 days of age on the average. These lambs often have special quality labels. In Corsica, those systems are producing mainly milk with very extensive systems producing annually on average l per ewe. 102

103 - The dry plateau of Causses sheep systems Mainly found in the South of the Central Massif, this system looks like the dry hill system, but it is run more intensively. The lambing rhythm is often accelerated to a 3 lambings in 2 years rhythm. The hardy breeds are crossed with meat breeds for specially quality labelled lambs. In this type of region we find the milk system of Roquefort, lambing massively once a year in late autumn and producing approximately 220 to 240 l per year and per ewe after weaning the lambs at 3 4 weeks. Italian production systems In Italy, Sardinia is the leader region for sheep. This island is specialised in milk production, with a typical Mediterranean climate and rainfall concentrated between autumn and spring with mild winters. Therefore, the herbage availability is strongly affected by rainfall distribution and by temperature. The sheep flocks in Sardinia are spread all over the region and they present a different degree of intensification depending on the soil and climatic conditions. On the lowlands a high percentage of cultivable land permits rich forage production associated with a high stocking rate and generally high milk production per hectare. In the hill and mountain areas, the production is based on the utilisation of natural pasture with a low stocking rate, between two and 12 ewes per hectare. About 80% of animals and farms are found in this area. Lambs, usually born in autumn (about two month later for yearlings), are slaughtered at the age of one month when the live-weight is about 8 11 kg. After weaning, the ewes are milked twice a day from December to June and once a day until they dry off in July. Greek production systems The Greek small ruminant systems are usually separated into four types: semi-intensive, sedentary extensive, transhumant and small intensive. In the last 20 years, the transhumant and the small intensive ones have rapidly regressed. -The semi-intensive systems These systems have recently developed in plains where they sometimes replace cotton production, because of their ability to get rid of the flock keeping by shepherds and thanks to the high price of the milk compared to the feed cost. They use large forage surface and selected breeds like Karagouniko and Chios (even some Lacaune have been recently imported). The sedentary extensive systems These systems have only a few hectares of land (4 ha on average, half of which is irrigated). They use mainly the common grazing lands which represent 70% of the national grazing surface area. Therefore, they need to keep the flock and to buy some feed representing 30 60% of the annual needs. Romanian production systems 103

104 Sheep are kept in Romania for their dairy products, for the slaughtered young lambs (4-6 weeks, kg), for wool production and sometimes for manure. All ewes of all breeds, including Merino and Karacul, are milked. Sheeps are having access to the pasture as much as possible and the only sheep that are kept in stable facilities are those used for fattening and, in this case, the flooring used is slats. The number of farms in Romania is 457,713 with 7,484,461 sheep (2009) (personal communication), with an average of 16.4 heads/farm. In Romania there are four main traditional extensive sheep production systems and some to half-intensive and intensive systems: - Local sheep production in arable area (30-40 percent of sheep). The sheep are grazed more on marginal land (pasture, stable field) in flocks of some sheep. In the winter the sheep are fed mostly with marginal agricultural products, and during the lambing with some concentrate (first lambing at 2 years, production life 5 years). They sell some one-half to three-fourths of their dairy products (some 5 kg cheese/ewe), threefourths of lambs (105 percent natality) and some wool. - Local sheep production on non-arable area (hills, mountains) (30-40 percent of sheep). The management patterns are more or less as in arable area, but in the summer time flocks are grazed generally in sub-alpine and alpine pasture and in spring and autumn in mountain meadow. For wintering peasants prepare hay on mountain slope meadows. - Pendulation (1 to 3 days walk) between alpine pasture and arable area (15-20 percent of sheep). The system, accepted sometimes as "short-transhumance" is practiced by some professional shepherds and middle sheep owners, dwellers in mountain or plain villages. - Transhumance Transhumance was and is the main production system of big shepherds. The big flock of mountain dwellers alternate between alpine pasture and some area of winter pasture at a distance of hundreds of kilometres nowadays, at thousands of kilometres in the past. Nevertheless, there still exist transhumant shepherds, who live in former, and not exclusively, transhumant villages. English production systems During the summer there are about 24 million sheep and lambs in the United Kingdom, of which 16 million are breeding ewes. There are approximately 79,000 holdings with breeding ewes applying different systems of production to suit the local geography and climate. Approximately two-thirds are concentrated on hill and upland areas (over 300m above sea level) in the north and west of the United Kingdom which are dominated by extensive grazing land and are usually not suitable for other types of agricultural production. A third are kept in lowland areas where the sheep enterprise is integrated with other agricultural production systems. 104

105 There is an integrated system between hill and lowland breeds where breeding stock produced on the hills and uplands are sold to lowland farmers who concentrate on meat production. North European countries Dýrmundsson (2004) described the specific characterisitis of sheep production in European countries. Meat has become the main product in the sheep sector while both wool and skins are now generally by-products and milk is normally produced in specialized units. Sheep production systems in North European countries are under strong climatic influence, namely low temperature and high precipitation, but there is also considerable variation. Thus even under lowland conditions supplementary feeding is normally needed with or without housing in winter. Housing and indoor feeding is required throughout the winter in all Nordic and Alpine regions due to snow and frost, for several months of the year in most cases. Such systems depend largely on upland and mountain grazing in summer under marginal conditions while the lowland systems are more intensive and in many cases they share land resources with other agricultural enterprises. Thus, for example, there are great contrasts between sheep husbandry in Greenland and Iceland, on one hand, and in Denmark and the Netherlands, on the other hand. Flock size is also highly variable, ranging from several hundred on specialized sheep farms, for example, in Greenland, Iceland, England, Scotland and Wales, to less than one hundred sheep in Norway, Finland, Belgium, Switzerland and Austria. Goat flocks are generally small in this part of Europe. Stocking rates vary from several sheep/goats per hectare on productive lowland pastures to several hectares per sheep/goat on mountainous rangelands. Consequently, the intensity of production shows substantial variation and this is also influenced by the breeds involved. There are, moreover, some cases of extensive management in summer (free-range mountain pastures) and intensive management in winter (housing and indoor feeding) in Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Austria. In general terms it can be stated, with some confidence, that sheep and goat production systems in Northern Europe are in good harmony with natural conditions in each locality and thus fulfill most criteria of sustainable development in agriculture Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare There are some critical points for animal welfare that can be observed in the three different management systems. Specific critical points for animal welfare for each specific management system are discussed later on: Shearing Shearing is involved in almost all sheep. Shearing is necessary for the well-being of sheep but can negatively affect the welfare of the animal if performed at an inappropriate time. Shearing when animals will be exposed to wet conditions, severe cold, or intense sunshine coupled with high temperatures can result in thermal stress. Failure to shear ewes before confinement for lambing, even in the winter, may result in moisture and health problems in the barn. Shearing itself, however, is a stress on the animal. Corticoid levels increase regardless of the method used, and it is believed the noise, heat, and contact of the clippers induce this reaction (Rushen and Congdon, 1986; Hargreaves and Hutson, 1990). The traditional method of upending sheep for shearing (resting on rump in upright position) contributes to the stress (Hargreaves and Hutson, 1990). Some shearers restrain sheep by binding their legs, a 105

106 procedure which is stressful in itself (Coppinger et al., 1991) and may result in injuries, but a comparison of the overall stressfulness of this method with up-ending has not been made. Shearing is less stressful if done quickly (Kilgour and Langen, 1970), but cuts resulting from hurried or careless shearing add to stress (Hargreaves and Hutson, 1990). Lameness Lameness is a major health and welfare problem in all sheep-producing countries because it causes discomfort and pain. Lameness is one of the conditions that has a number of infective causes that can be controlled and in some cases eradicated by use of current treatments and management practices. The vast majority of lameness cases can be attributed to scald (infection with Fusobacterium necrophorum, a naturally occurring environmental pathogen), and footrot (infection with Dichelobacter nodosus). Scald occurs on wet pasture due to the invasion of F. necrophorum into the skin of the interdigital cleft. It is a relatively mild condition and its importance is that it predisposes to the development of footrot if D. nodosus is present in the environment. D. nodosus is a more labile bacterium and will only survive in the environment for about 7 days so this knowledge makes a control programme possible. Lame sheep are less able to graze and compete for feed and this affects productivity (inadequate body condition, increased predisposition to disease, reduced fertility, etc.). In addition to the effects on productivity, lameness sheep show physiological responses of pain and stress. Sheep with footrot have elevated vasopressin and prolactin, and elevated plasma cortisol with severe lesions. Sheep with both mild and severe footrot show elevated plasma adrenaline and noradrenaline, suggesting activation of the sympathetic adreno-medullary system (Roger, 2008). Dogs A flock experiences more stress when approached by a person with a dog than when approached by a person alone. Driving a flock using a dog causes very high, sustained heart rates (Baldock and Sibly, 1990), indicative of fear. Dogs that bite sheep cause much greater stress than nonbiting dogs (Kilgour and Langen, 1970). However, the use of a well-trained dog does not result in high corticoid levels and probably reduces the overall stress of herding by decreasing the time required to complete the work. Handling Sheep may be handled several times a year for shearing, drenching, hoof-trimming, and general health inspections. Sheep are restrained during these procedures by hand or in tilt tables. Both methods are stressful (Hargreaves and Hutson, 1990; Rushen, 1986a; Rushen, 1986b), but no comparison of the two has been made. The stress of herding and handling can be reduced by using well-designed and well-maintained facilities and conscientious personnel. Ensuring that the animals maintain visual contact with other sheep is also important to prevent excessive stress (Rushen, 1986a). Lamb losses Lamb mortality is a significant welfare concern, being the average mortality in developed countries of 15-20% with nearly 50% of these lamb deaths occurring within the first 3 days of life. The main causes of lamb deaths are: a) pre- or periparturient disorders (30-40%); b) 106

107 weakly lamb/exposure/starvation (25-30%); c) infectious disease and gastrointestinal problems (20-25%); d) congenital disoders (5-8%); e) predation, misadventure and unknown causes (5%) (Roger, 2008). The risks of lambs succumbing to any of the causes of death will vary somewhat by management. For example, outdoor lambing systems may have higher deaths from dystocia (as the risks of a ewe experiencing difficulties and not being assisted are greater) and exposure/starvation, whereas indoor lambing systems face greater risks of infectious diseases and abortions. Tail-Docking Tail-docking is practiced routinely on most sheep operations. Docking is stressful (Rhodes et al., 1989), but surgical removal appears to be less so than the use of rubber rings (Kent et al., 1991). Although the use of a heated cautery iron produces the least changes in behaviour and cortisol levels (Graham et al., 1997), it is not the preferred method of tail-docking due to the incidence of chronic infections. Ear tags Ear tags can be the source of injuries and infections in sheep. Edwards and Johnston (1999) reported on the incidence of injuries associated with six types of ear tags. The shape of the tag was more important than the material in causing injuries. Loop tags resulted in more injuries. The least injuries were caused by plastic two-piece tags made of flexible polyurethane Extensive systems Environmental impacts Animals are exposed to much greater environmental challenges than animals maintained in temperature and humidity controlled housing. This environmental variability is not, of itself, likely to cause poor welfare. However, prolonged exposure to extreme environmental conditions, particularly if they are accompanied by other challenges (undernutrition, poor body condition, lack of shelter, for example), may be a source of chronic stress. Stocking density Calculation of carrying capacity and this required stocking density on pastures is often achieved by assessing the previous year s livestock performance and adjusting new flock replacement numbers accordingly. Although this maintains some level of balance between carrying capacity and livestock numbers there may be periods or years when livestock numers are out of balance with the available grazing leading to undernutrition. Predation Extensive sheep, particularly when managed on unenclosed pastures or ranges without shepherding, are still vulnerable to attack by predators. Both wild and domestic sheep can be relatively easy kills for wild canids or felids and, particularly ewes and juveniles, are largely defenceless other than expressing antipredator behaviours (flight). Lambs and subadult sheep 107

108 are generally the most vulnerable to predator attacks, adult sheep are reportedly killed preferentially only by bears, and mountain lions. Human-animal relationship Although in extensive systems sheep spend most of their time at pasture, there are times when they are moved to facilities for handling or inspection. These facilities (pens, races, sheds) may be not necessarily designed thinking in sheep welfare. Extensively managed animals also differ from intensively managed animals in the frequency of interactions with stockpersons, and those interactions that do occur are often aversive. Thus, gathering and handling are likely to be considerably more stressful for extensively managed animals than animals with more experience of human interaction. Lack of regular inspection, however, leaves extensive sheep open to the possibility of chronic and untreated distress, disease or injury. The most common problems are obstetric difficulties and related problems around lambing time (e.g. vaginal prolapse, poor ewe-lamb bonding, mastitis), fly strike in warm and humid summer months, lameness, and parasitic infestation. Social organisation Under the extensive systems, sheep have the capacity to express the full range of their natural behaviours, although some aspects of their normal social organisation are disrupted due to breeding considerations. These disruptions include weaning earlier than would occur naturally and segregation of sheep on the basis of age and sex. Ewe nutrition The nutritional value of hill grazings is low and levels of supplementation are often also low, either becasue of the low profitability of these entreprises or because of problems with acces to feed animals on remote pastures. As the nutrition of the pregnant ewe is frequently suboptimal, high levels of both ewe and lamb mortality can occur Intensive systems (dairy sheep) Housing Close confinement can be a source of stress and a welfare concern in housed dairy sheep. Inadequate ventilation results in increased concentrations of ammonia and carbon dioxide in the air and ewes in poorly ventilated housing have reduced feed intakes and increased adrenal responsiveness to adrenocorticotrophn. There is, however, no effect on immune measures of stress in the ewes. Ewes kept at relatively low density (2m 2 per ewe versus 1 m 2 ) had greater milk yield with a higher proportion of protein and fat than ewes at the high sotcking density. These ewes also had fewer somatic cells and bacteria in their milk (Kilgour et al., 2008). This resulted in fewer cases of subclinical mastitis in the ewes at low stocking density in comparison to ewes with less space per animal. There have been very few studies of the preferences of sheep for different types of bedding or housing conditions. In general, sheep appear to prefer to lie on straw in comparison to other types of flooring, and spend more time lying on straw bedding. 108

109 When intensive confinement of sheep is practiced, wool-picking may occur. Wool picking generally involves one or more sheep picking wool from a less dominant sheep. In some instances, however, a sheep may pick its own wool. Although the stressfulness of this behavior to the recipient is unknown, it is generally felt that the occurrence of wool-picking reflects a chronic level of stress in the entire pen. Early weaning A particular feature of all dairy systems is the early weaning of offspring so that milk production can be exploited by man. The interval between birth and early weaning can be very variable in different systems, ranging from immediate separatin to weaning at 2-3 months of age, and can include a period of both milking and suckling as in the mixed systems. Mother-young separation at any age before natural weaning is stressful for both partners, causing at least transient increases in stress hormone concentrations (Kilgour et al., 2008). Behaviourally, abrupt weaning is associated with an increase in activity, especially vocalisation, and disruption of circadian rhythms of activity. Human-animal relationship The close nature of the contacts between ewe and stockperson inherent in milking sheep means that the stockperson can be a source of fear for the dairy ewe, although conversely a good stockperson can bring positive welfare benefits to the flock. Gentle handling and feeding has been shown to result in the development of a positive social bond between lambs and the stockperson. Thus, the development of a relationship with the stockperson in the early life of the dairy lamb, and positive handling during the productive life of the ewe can help to reduce welfare issues with milking of dairy ewes. Diseases Dairy ewes are at risk of developing production-related diseases such as mastitis. The incidence of clinical intramammary infections in sheep is relatively low, at or below 5% (Kilgour et al., 2008). However, the incidence of subclinical mastitis, varies from 4% to more than 40%. Subclinical mastitis appears to be less with machine milking than hand milking, which suggests that hygiene during milking may reduce the spread of infection. Gastrointestinal nematodes are a major health and welfare issue for small ruminants, and this may be particularly a concern with lactating animals, since the ability to maintain immunity to parasites is compromised with late pregnancy and early lactation. The increased time spent in housing and intensification of dairy sheep production also carries the risk of increasing the spread of infection Traditional management systems Environmental impacts During pastoralism animals are subject to environmental stressors and as these systems take place in areas with harsh and unpredictable climates these challenges may be frequent and sustained. The main environmental disasters affecting livestock are drought and blizzards. Under blizzard conditions the stock are cut off from feed and large numbers may die simultaneously from hypothermia or suffocation regardless of their body condition. The 109

110 effects of drought are progressive and cumulative, so deaths will be slower than in blizzard conditions and weaker animals die first. Predation Sheep flocks are vulnerable to predation from wolves, snow leopards, lynx and other large carnivores. Effective protection of sheep relies on the herder s ability to keep the flocks together during the day to prevent straying when there is increased risk that isolated animals will be attacked. Diseases The sharing of grazing between herds can exacerbate the impact of infectious disease, which can spread rapidly from one herd to the next. Management interventions The close relationship between herder and livestock means that any loss of welfare may be detected more quickly than in systems where the animals are viewed less frequently. Despite these benefits, there are some management practices that can impact on welfare. Castration of male lambs is common in these systems. The rubber ring method of castration maintains popularity despite the fact that it is one of the more painful methods. Several studies were conducted to determine ways of reducing the pain accompanying this procedure. The use of an epidural anaesthetic was ineffective in reducing the pain induce by rubber ring castration (Scott et al., 1996). However, the use of a local anaesthetic in conjunction with the ring method was effective in reducing pain (Kent et al., 1998). These authors also found that combining the rubber ring and bloodless castrator (clamp or Burdizzo) methods resulted in a reduction in pain compared to the ring method alone. This was confirmed by Thorton and Waterman-Pearson (1999) who compared the ring and combined methods with surgical castration. In terms of overall pain and cortisol response, the combined ring and clamp method was the least harmful when no anaesthetic was used. A local anaesthetic was completely effective in eliminating the reactions to ring and combined castration, but not so for the surgical method. A general anaesthetic was effective for the surgical method. The conclusion to be drawn from these studies is that the combined method is the least stressful of those studied, and that it can be further improved with the use of a local anaesthetic. Two other studies examined management factors associated with either ring or bloodless castrator methods. In one, Kent et al. (1999) concluded that the ring should be used for small lambs. When used for lambs at 28 or 42 days of age there were more severe and larger lessions than when used on 2-day-old lambs. A survey of problems encountered with the use of the bloodless castrator indicated that haemorrhage and infection were common (Hosie et al., 1996). It was recommended that only castrators designed for use on lambs should be used, that the instrument should be properly maintained and stored, and that stockpersons should be trained in it use. 110

111 4. Goats Few goat production units are to be found in significant numbers outside the Mediterranean regions, as is the case for the important goat region in the Central West part of France, and some goat production is also starting to develop in The Netherlands. Goat breeds are mainly and normally milk producers. Concerning the genetic potential, it should be highlighted that the diversity of small ruminant breeds is very important in Mediterranean countries, especially Spain and Italy for goat breeds (de Rancourt et al., 2006). The European goat breeds were grouped by Simon and Buchenauer (1993) into ten groups: Saanen, Chamois, Toggenburg, Swiss Mountain, Maltese/Alpine/Garganica, Southern White, White with Black, Black or Red, Southern multicoloured and Nordic Landrace Description of common husbandry systems in Europe The management systems under which goats are kept can be described and classified in many ways depending on the purpose of classification. In basic terms goat systems can simply be described as: Traditional systems It was characterised because animals in small flocks were manually milked one or two times per day. Milk was sold in a door-to-door sales system every day. Animals went out to pasture every day and they did not receive any feeding supplementation. Males stayed with females and in some cases they wear aprons to avoid indeseable matings in some dates. Kids did not go out to pasture, they suckled at night and were sold with 1-2 months. When facilities where used, they were old and not too operative. Hygienic-sanitary conditions were very defficient which produced high rates of mortality and low productivity. This system has mostly disappeared and has evoluted to the extensive system Extensive systems The common point with the previous system is that feeding is based on pasture, which is exclusive in the case of goats that produces kids for meat. Goats are grazing freely with or without supervision on natural vegetation, typically in areas with relatively low rainfall with no external inputs (fig. 4.1). The main advantage of these systems is that they convert otherwise unusable fibrous plant material into products useful to man and thereby enable him to live in relatively inhospitable parts of the world. Males go always together with female. When milk is also produced, animals receive some supplemental feeding and males can wear an apron with the females or they can stay inside. The main difference is based on milk collection and transfer to the industry for its treatment and transformation, and also for the obligatory control of flock health. 111

112 Figure 4.1. Extensive systems (photo: UAB) Semi-extensive systems The main product obtained is milk, being the kids a complementary product. Males are separated from females and milking is performed mechanically. Pasture with supplementation is the main feeding practice. This system and the following ones require the acceptance by the farmer of some technologies: mechanical milking, milk hygienization, farrowing organisation, mechanical systems of feeding and cleaning, inscription in associations involved in improvement of genetics and production control, etc (fig. 4.2) Semi-intensive systems Similarly to the previous one, the main production is milk and kids have so a subsidiary paper that farmers tend to get rid of kids from the farm as soon as possible. Feeding inside has a principal component and pasture is a secundary activity. Male separation is total and usually there is a planification of calvings. Matings are concentrated in spring and have the objective of having 1 birth/goat per year. Farmers are opened to incorporate technological advances and they belong to several associations. These systems are also called in ways of intensification. 112

113 Figure 4.2. Semi-intensive systems (photo: UAB) Intensive systems Permanent housing implies the total abandonment of grazing, the most extreme intensification and management of animals in a very controlled way. The vast majority of goats in the world are kept in extensive or semi-intensive systems in many cases using management techniques that have not changed much for many generations. Intensive, mainly dairy, systems are only widely known in Europe Specific aspects of housing and management Mutilations Disbudding In goat kids, the practice of disbudding is performed during the first 2 4 weeks of life, to remove the germinal tissue of the horn, which prevents horn development in adults. Disbudding is carried out by thermal cauterisation. Valdmanis et al. (2007) performed a survey of dehorning practices and pain management in goats and observed that 8-10% of the world goat population (800 million) is maintained in housed conditions and systematically disbudded/dehorned without any proven anaesthetic/analgesic Climate Goats are very adaptive and do not require fancy or costly housing, however, they need protection from the elements and weather extremes. When it rains or snows, goats seek shelter. They can tolerate cold weather but should not remain cold and wet for long periods of 113

114 time. While goats are generally more tolerant of the heat and humidity than sheep, during the summer months it is important to provide a shady area with adequate air circulation Nutritional Feeding on the ground results in considerable feed wastage and contributes greatly to the spread of disease, especially internal parasites. If goats are able to stand in their feed or feeders, they will defecate and urinate in the feed. Feeders need to be raised off the ground and constructed in such a way to keep goats out. There are various designs for grain feeders. V-shaped feeders are easier to clean than feeders with square bottoms. Rubber or metal pans are useful for hand feeding small numbers of goats. Keyhole feeders are popular with dairy goat producers, but may present problems to goats with horns. Specially effective are feeders that can be hung on the side of the fence, then removed after the goats have finished eating. Hay can be fed in bunks or racks or along a fence line. V-shaped racks with vertical or diagonal slats work best. There should be enough feeder space for all goats to eat at once. Mineral feeders are hang higher than the goats can reach and then a block is provided for them to stand on Geographical distribution The total EU population for goats is 13,062,000 animals (EUROSTAT, 2008). Considering the size of the national populations Greece is a leader in goat flocks (Table 4.1). Greece has 5.0 million goats, on 120,000 farms which represent 14% of the national farm number (De Rancourt et al., 2006). The country is ranked first goat milk production in the EU. It is the only developed country in the world where the production of cow s milk production is less than that of small ruminant milk (41% versus 59%). In Greece, 88% of the ruminant stock units milked are small ruminants. Two specificities can be mentioned for Greece: all small ruminants belong to a milk breed, and about half of the farms are mixed goat and sheep farms. Spain has 2.3 million goat females and 3.0 million head of goats, 80% of which are concentrated in four regions, with the following ranking (De Rancourt et al., 2006): Andalucia (important leader region with 43%), Castilla la Mancha (15%), Canary Islands (11%, with the highest density per unit of surface area) and Extremadura (9%). The goat population is distributed among 35,000 farms with an average number of 86 heads per farm. The population of goats in Spain is decreasing globally more in the South than in the North regions. The goat flock is mainly milk oriented at 73.5%. The milk goat flock is concentrated at about 80% in three regions (Andalucia, Canary Islands and Castilla la Mancha). The meat goat flock is more widespread, principally in Castilla la Mancha (19.6%). 114

115 Table 4.1. Country Austria Belarus Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus France Germany Greece Hungary Italy Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Spain Switzerland Numbers of goat (EUROSTAT 2008; FAOSTAT, 2008) and number of goats holdings (EUROSTAT 2003) in countries together holding 99.5% of the European goat population. Total goat ( 000) Goats which have already kidded and goats mated ( 000) Goats mated for the first time ( 000) Other goats ( 000) Total holdings ( ooo) Goats in organic farming (total) In France, the main goat region is situated in the central Western part of the country (Poitou Charente), which is not a Mediterranean region. We can find some small goat areas in French Mediterranean regions but of lesser importance. Two main goat systems can be described in the French Mediterranean regions, depending on the natural and market conditions (De Rancourt et al., 2006): The cheese goat system: The farm is specializing on cheese production, often with direct sales. The flock is usually small as the aim is to place added value through the cheese making with low investment. Those systems try to be self-sufficient in forage. They are rather extensive and are situated mainly in less favoured areas. The milk goat system: The farm is more orientated towards the intensification of the production with a higher forage intake. They try to produce some out-of-season milk in autumn. The forage selfsufficiency is not a priority and they can often be found in more favourable conditions than the cheese systems, mostly in the South part of the Central Massif. They sometimes process the milk into cheese in areas where the dairy industry does not collect it. The two French goat systems can be summarised in Table

116 Table 4.2. Comparison of the two goat systems in France (adapted from De Rancourt et al., 2006): Cheese goat system Milk goat system Flock size (goat) Worker units 2 2 Forage surface (ha) Low fertility land (ha) Some Productivity (l goat -1 year -1 ) Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare There is little information about critical points for animal welfare in goats. Some of them include: Disbudding In goat kids, disbudding is clearly a stressful situation and, although it is a common practice, there is not much information regarding the ensuing physiological and behavioural response. Alvarez and Gutiérrez (2010) studied the stress, physiological and behavioural response to disbudding in disbudded kids compared with a control group. Cortisol was higher in disbudded than in control kids during the first 2 h after disbudding. The cortisol area under the curve was 235% higher in disbudded compared to control animals (828 [± 67.4] and 350 [± 65] nmol/l, respectively). Disbudded kids showed high intensity behaviours in a greater number of animals (100%) and with a greater frequency than in control animals. These results indicate the presence of acute stress and a potentially painful experience. So that, disbudding in goat kids induces an acute cortisol increase, which lasts for 2 3 h, and a significant behavioural response which clearly suggests the necessity of using anaesthesia/analgesia to avoid pain and stress. Neonatal mortality Neonatal kid mortality rates vary in different countries between 7 and 51%, and in extreme conditions this rate goes up to 100% (Konyali et al., 2007). A big focus has been on the relationship between weight of placenta and birth weight of newborn. On the other hand, the environment provided by dam affects fetal development, survival of newborn and the growth of offspring in the pre-weaning period. Stand up and suckle time can be used as an indicator of newborn vitality. Birth type (single or multiple), maternal and paternal genetic effects, and duration of birth influence the length of birth-to-standing and the birth-to-suckling. Social organization The common practice of regrouping can have negative consequences for goat welfare because it interrupts the process of individual recognition, which is a basic requirement for maintaning group cohesion and stability (Miranda-de la Lama and Mattiello, 2010). When new members are introduced into a group, the social structure is altered, temporarily, and the linear social hierarchy of the group is disrupted. In goats, rank is very important for gaining access to resources. The introduction of new goats to herds can increase aggression, disrupt the social structure of an established herd, and alter the social hierarchy of the group. To minimize the 116

117 stress on individuals, groups should be kept as stable as possible and the introduction of new individuals should be monitored closely because the integration of unfamiliar animals into a group always is a stressful event for goats. Human-goat relationships As herding animals, goats need to establish some sort of social relationship and, as in many other herding species; they can develop strong bonds with humans. The importance of early contact with humans and gentling treatments on the establishment of the human animal bond has been studied in many ungulate species, and positive, early contact can improve this relationship and result in tamer animals, which exhibit less fear and, therefore, are easier to handle (Miranda-de la Lama and Mattiello, 2010). 117

118 5. Laying hens 5.1. Description of common husbandry systems in Europe and their specific management The housing of laying hens is regulated by EU-Directive 1999/74, in which the minimum standards for the protection of laying hens are laid down. In this directive 3 different housing systems are distinguished: unenriched cages, enriched cages and non-cage systems. The latter can have free range access or not. For rearing flocks no European regulations exist. National legislations vary from none to fairly specific Rearing Rearing cages The majority of pullets are reared in cages. These cages are often stacked in 2 or 3 rows. The cages are equipped with waterlines with nipple drinkers that can be adjusted in height. Feed troughs run outside the cage. Special openings make the feeders accessible for small chicks. When the pullets grow older, the feeder can be adjusted according to their age. No nestboxes or perches are available. Manure is collected with manure belts or is falling in a pit. Usually no daylight is provided. To prevent feather pecking lights are dimmed. Chicks are initially housed in one of the cage rows. When they grow older and larger they are distributed over the rest of the cages. To minimize handling stress, this procedure is usually combined with another necessary handling of the chicks, e.g. vaccination. To determine growth the chicks from some cages are weight on a regular basis. Around 16 weeks of age a sample of pullets is weighed to estimate the bodyweight and uniformity of the flock. At about 18 weeks of age pullets are put in transport crates or containers and transported to the layer house Single floor rearing system In this type of housing most of the times a part of the floor is covered with slats with a manure pit underneath. The rest of the floor of the house is covered with litter. Some houses have 100% litter floors. Water is supplied by means of nipple drinkers that can be adjusted in height. Feed is either supplied in troughs ore in circular feeders. At the start of the rearing period the chicks are housed on the slated floor and fences are made to prevent them from jumping off the slatted floor area (fig. 5.1). In that period the litter area is not yet used. The house is usually heated with gas heaters. To enable the chicks to walk normally the wire mesh of slats are covered with chick paper or plastic mattings. An advantage of the paper is, that hens get into contact with their own manure. In this way they can get immunity to coccidiosis. After 3 weeks the paper is removed or so much worn off, that only the underlying wire mesh remains. Manure can then fall through the wire floor into the pit. At this age the fencing is taken away, enabling the chicks to go off the wire floor into the litter area. Often at this moment a-frames with perches are positioned on the wire floors. 118

119 To determine growth rate of the chicks often an automatic weighing system is used. At around 16 weeks of age a sample of pullets is catched and weighed to determine body weight and uniformity. At about 18 weeks of age the pullets are catched, put in transport crates or containers and transported to the layer house. To manage the chicks for vaccination and beak treatments, low fencings are used, to fence off a part of the house. These fences are slowly moved through the house until all chicks have been handled and placed at the other side of the fence. Figure 5.1: Single floor rearing system (photo: Marko Ruis) Aviary rearing system In aviary rearing systems the chicks are initially housed on one of the wire floors in the system. This floor can be closed with wire fences. The wire floor often are covered with paper at the start of the rearing. Some feed is spread on it or some low feeder plates are placed on the floor. After 3 weeks the paper has vanished or is removed. 119

120 When the chicks are old enough to move around in the system, the fences are taken away and the pullets are given access to the litter floors. Depending on the layout of the system this can be done at 3 weeks of age or later. There are no nestboxes in the system. Feed and water is supplied in the system on the wire floors. Litter areas are in the aisles between the stacked floors. To train the pullets in jumping from one row to another, usually perches are not only installed in the system, but also alongside the walls of the house. Aviary rearing units are usually split in sections by fences running from the front to the back of the house. In large units also cross sections may be made (fig. 5.2). The small sections enable farmers to rear separate groups of birds (e.g. different genotypes). It also improves the possibilities to control the birds and finally catching and handling of the pullets is easier. To ease the management for vaccination and beak treatments sometimes movable fences are installed, dividing a section in two parts. Figure 5.2: Aviary rearing system for laying hens (photo: Thea van Niekerk) 120

121 Laying period Traditional cages Although conventional cages will be banned in Europe from 2012 on in 2010 still the majority of layers is kept in this housing system (fig. 5.3). There is a wide variety of cages, differing in material, size and equipment. In the EFSA report (EFSA, 2005) conventional cages were described as follows: Conventional laying cages (CC) are usually small enclosures with welded wire mesh sloping floors. They provide equipment only for feeding, drinking, egg collection, manure removal, insertion and removal of hens, and claw shortening. These cages fall into the category of the EU-Directive "unenriched cage systems" In the LayWel report the systems are described in more detail (LayWel, 2006). Conventional cages usually house 5 hens, but smaller or larger groups also exist. EU-Directive 1999/74 poses a minimum area per bird of 550 cm 2. In recent years more cages for large groups were installed, so that these could be furnished later when required by law. Conventional cages provide water to the birds by means of nipple drinkers. Feed is usually provided in a feed trough running outside the cage. At least 10 cm per birds should be available. Eggs roll onto the egg belt, that is positioned underneath the feed trough. Egg collection usually is automated. Manure falls through the wire floor usually on a manure belt, but there are also models where the manure falls directly into a pit. In the models with manure belts drying systems can be installed, These mostly consist of air tubes blowing heated air over the manure. Conventional cages usually are installed in rows and in more levels, running up to 10 levels. In case of more than 3 levels devices are used to be able to inspect all cages. Most cage houses have mechanical ventilation and no daylight. Figure 5.3: Traditional cage system (photo: Thea van Niekerk) 121

122 Furnished cages Furnished cages provide more facilities to the hens. They can be fairly small (6 hens per unit) or very large (over 60 hens per unit, fig. 5.4). As described in the EU-Directive 1999/74 they fall under the category "enriched cages" and should contain nest space, perches and litter. Water usually is provided through nipple drinkers and feed is provided in a feed trough that usually runs outside the cage, but can also be positioned in the cage. Per hen there should be at least 750 cm2 area, 15 cm perch length and 12 cm. feeder space. EU-Directive 1999/74 requires furnished cages to be higher than conventional cages. Like with conventional cages, rows can be stacked. Because the cages are higher, usually less rows are stacked. Furnished cages usually are installed with manure belts with or without drying systems. The henhouses usually are mechanically ventilated and do not provide daylight. The rate of automation is equal to that in conventional cage houses. In some European countries (D, NL) more strict regulations for cages have been adopted in National legislation. This has led to a specific type of furnished cage that is called "Kleingruppenhaltung" or "colony housing" (figure 5.5). These cages are a bit higher (60 cm height an the sides, whereas furnished cages are at least 45 cm high) and provide 800 cm 2 per bird. Also they should contain at least 90 cm 2 nest area and 90 cm 2 litter area per bird (no minimum is described for furnished cages). Finally a minimal size of the cages is set at 25,000 cm 2, resulting in minimum group sizes of 30 hens. Figure 5.4: Schematic drawing of 2 large furnished cages (schedule: 122

123 Figure 5.5: Large furnished cages, type "colony housing" (photo: Thea van Niekerk) Non-cage systems without free range These systems, which include those that fall into the category of the EU-Directive Alternative systems, are operated from inside and the keepers enter them (EFSA, 2005). A part of the floor is covered with litter. The rest of the floor can be equipped with a manure pit covered with a slatted floor or an aviary system can be installed, containing more stacked floors with slatted or wire mesh floors over a manure belt (fig. 5.6 and 5.7). There should not be more than 4 levels in the house (EU, 1999) All current alternative systems provide the birds with nest boxes. These can be positioned over the litter, over the wire floor or be integrated in the stacked floors (figure 5.8). Elevated perches may or may not be included. Except for some exemptions, that are allowed to have a stocking density of 12 hens/m 2, the stocking density should not exceed 9 birds per m 2 usable are. There should be at least 10 cm feed trough or 4 cm circular feeder space per bird. Water is usually provided by nipple drinkers, but also open water systems are used. The number of hens per farm can vary from a few hundred to more than hens. By means of fences the group size usually is limited to 6000 hens. 123

124 Figure 5.6: Cross section of single tiered non-cage system. (schedule: Figure 5.7: Cross section of Aviaries with non-integrated nest boxes. (schedule: 124

125 Figure 5.8: Aviary with integrated nest boxes. (photo: ASG) Non-cage systems with free range All non-cage systems can be combined with free range (fig. 5.9). The use of the free range usually depends on the experience of the hens and the amount of shelter. Open areas usually are avoided by laying hens. Bushes and shelter are used well by the hens and will also reduce the number of predated hens. More and more a covered veranda, also called Wintergarten, is used. Covered verandas can be build as additional element to the henhouse or as part of the total construction (fig. 5.10). For the latter the roof and floor are extended. The wall between the inside area and the covered veranda is then build more to the inside of the house. The outside wall often is a curtain that can be lifted to provide hens access to the free range area. If there is no free range the outside wall is fenced off with wire mesh preventing hens from going out, but letting the fresh air blow freely through the area. Only some protecting devices can be made to prevent rain entering the area. The floor of the covered veranda is usually covered with litter. This can be only a thin layer of sand, but especially in organic farming the area is used to provide hens with additional feeding materials (e.g. straw, vegetables). 125

126 Figure 5.9: Free range (photo: Rick van Emous) Figure 5.10: Covered veranda (right) connected to free range (photo: Thea van Niekerk) 5.2. Main a-specific management procedures in Europe A-specific aspects of housing and management Mutilations Mutilations in laying hens comprise only beak trimming. Beak trimming in laying hens is regulated in the EU-Directive 1999/74, allowing this procedure only until 10 days of age of the birds. The majority is trimmed using a hot blade, cutting off the tip of the beak. Recently a new, less stressful procedure has been introduced, using infrared radiation. This causes the tip 126

127 of the beak to erode in one or two weeks. The advantage above the traditional hot blade method is, that no open wounds are made, thus no risk for bleeding to death or infections. Also there is probably less pain for the birds. Beak trimming is banned in the Scandinavic countries. In the Northern part of Europe beak trimming is banned or strictly regulated. In Mid, South and East no stricter legislation is in force than the EU-Directive 1999/ Climate In Scandinavic countries free range is not possible in the long, cold winters with lots of snow. Heat stress is usually no issue in these countries, but is an issue in Southern Europe. Western European countries have wet climates, making it more difficult to realize dry litter in the houses. Also extra management is needed to prevent wet free range and consequently a higher risk for diseases Human-animal relationship Layer pullets are handled several time during the rearing period. At the hatchery they are vaccinated and sexed. A part of the flocks is beak trimmed in the hatchery. If flocks are beak trimmed at the rearing farm this may have an adverse effect on the human-animal relation (Fiks-van Niekerk et al., 2009a). Frequent friendly contact of the caretaker with the flock will make them less fearful to humans. During the rearing period several vaccinations are given to the pullets. For some vaccinations this can be done by spraying or through the drinking water, making handling of the birds unnecessary. In those cases where handling of the birds is necessary, the treatment may be stressful to the bird. At the end of the rearing period birds are crated and transported to the layer house Nutritional The modern genotypes of laying hens are hardly or not restricted in feeding during rearing or laying period. Only when flocks are moulted either feed restriction or low-calorie feed is used to induce an egg-laying stop. There is some discussion on how stressful this procedure is for laying hens. Webster (2000) states that physically hens are well capable to adjust to a moulting procedure, as in the wild hens are equipped to undergo voluntary feed restriction during broodiness. In a trial with forced feed restriction he found that laying hens need about 3 days to adjust to the moulting procedure. Only on the first day of the moulting procedure some aggressive behaviour was recorded, but no other signal of stress were seen. Other authors also did not find clear evidence for high levels of stress (Anderson et al., 2007; McCowan et al., 2006; Zeltner & Hirt, 2005) Breeding aspects There are many different genotypes of laying hens, all being crossbreds of various selection lines. Most genotypes fall within three distinct groups: brown feathered hens, white feathered hens and the so-called silvers. The brown feathered hens originate from the Rhode Island Red breed and used to be heavier that white hens. With improving selection on efficient and high egg production body weight has dropped. White hens originate from the Single Combed White Leghorn. The silvers are crossbreds from the same selection lines as the brown hens, but the lines are combined in a different way. Except for the colour of the feathers, which is 127

128 white, with often some brown or yellow spots, the silvers are similar to the brown hens in body weight and many behavioural aspects. They lay brown eggs. White hens tended to be used more in cages and brown hens in floor systems. Silvers are fairly new genotypes and became popular in organic farming, because they were thought to perform less feather pecking. Recently their share is reducing. With the growing importance of aviary systems and more countries banning beak trimming, white hens are used more and more in non-cage systems. The reason is that white hens move easier through multi-tier-systems and are said to give less problems with feather pecking. Indeed some proof of the latter has been collected in recent projects (Tauson, personal communication; van Niekerk, not yet published data) Other issues In some parts of Europe (e.g. The Netherlands) the density of farms is high, henhouses are in close vicinity of each other. In cases of outbreaks of infectious diseases this can cause a quick spread of the problem over a lot of farms. In countries where farms are not so close to each other (e.g. Scandinavia), the risk that diseases jump from farm to farm is lower Geographical distribution Table 5.1 gives the number of laying hens per country of the European Union. Countries with large amounts of laying hens are: France, Germany, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Rumania and United Kingdom. The Polish figures apply only to the industrial producing laying hens, which is 64% of total laying hen population. In Rumania the large number of hens is caused by a few companies with very large poultry units. Often these units are managed by foreigners. Looking at the type of housing system still 2/3 of the hens are housed in cages, from which the majority is not enriched. The majority of layers are housed in cages in the south of Europe. Barn hens are mainly housed in Central Europe, whereas free range hens are not only located in the centre, but also in the east of Europe. There may be a difference in type of barn, The barn systems in central Europe will mainly be modern, large units, whereas the ones in eastern Europe comprise mainly smaller, more old fashioned family farms. An exception is Rumania, where recently some new, very large barn units are taken into production. 128

129 Table 5.1: Total number of laying hens (x1,000) in Europe per housing system (Eurostat 2008, AGRI C4 M.R., 2008) Cages Non-cage production non Enriched Enriched Free range Barn Organic Total altern. Total % alt/ total Belgium 7, ,601 9, Bulgary 2, ,408 1,830 4, Tsjech Republic 5, , Denmark 1, ,339 2, Germany 27,501 5,835 9,716 2,454 18,005 45, Estland Griece 4, , Spain 44, ,344 46, France 36,041 5,379 1,302 1,527 8,208 44, Ireland 1, , Italy 39, ,173 1,015 9,749 49, Cyprus Letland 1, , Lituania 2, , Luxemburg 0, Hungary 4, , Malta Netherlands 13,916 3,633 12, ,144 31, Austria 1, , ,159 5, Poland 1) 32, , ,970 33, Portugal Rumania 3,222 1,134 34, ,986 39, Slovenia , Slowakia 5, , Finland 3, , Sweden 2, ,234 3,252 5, United Kingdom 16,588 1,323 12,255 2,573 1,544 16,372 34, EUR ,990 65,610 50,383 8, , , ) Polish industrial producing laying hens, which is 64% of total laying hen population 5.4. Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare The first influence on the welfare of day-old laying hen pullets is the issue of beak trimming. This measure is banned or will be banned in Scandinavian countries and several North- Western European countries. Independent of the method used, beak trimming is a painful treatment that can result in chronic pain if performed too severe or at older age. The age aspect has been dealt with in EU-Directive 1999/74, in which beak trimming is regulated and only allowed before 10 days of age. 129

130 The recently introduced InfraRed method treats the beak tip without removing it. This is dome in the hatchery. After about 7 days the tip erodes away. The advantage is that no open wounds appear and thus pain sensation is probably less compare to the previously used hot blade method. Also there is no risk for bleeding to death or infections (Fiks et al., 2009b). As the Infra Red method is not yet widely used, still the majority of flocks is trimmed before 10 days of age using the hot blade method. This measure is not only a serious thread to the human-animal relation (Fiks et al, 2009a), but also caused a risk for bird health (risk for bleeding to death, infections) and welfare (pain and possibly chronic pain) (Fiks et al, 2009b). During the rearing period pullets are frequently vaccinated. This can be done in various ways and not always actual handling of the birds is necessary. The level of stress is dependent on the method used. At the end of the rearing period a sample of the pullets is weighed and a few days later all pullets are crated and transported to the laying house. Especially with non-beak trimmed hens the risk for feather pecking and injurious pecking is present. good management in both rearing and laying period can help to reduce this risk. The most common theory is that feather pecking is misdirected floor pecking and may be triggered in the absence of adequate substrate (Blokhuis and Van der Haar, 1992). Research has indicated that providing litter in the early rearing period and providing perches in the rearing period can reduce this risk (Gunnarsson et al. (1999). Many factors are mentioned in the literature to reduce the risk for feather pecking and injurious pecking. The most important factors include: type of floor, stocking density, flock size, food structure and composition, genotype and light intensity (EFSA, 2005). Cannibalism is not always a result of excessive feather pecking, but often has a different motivation. Risk factors associated with the occurrence of cannibalism are feed composition (deficiencies), group size, the incidence of wounds and all factors associated with vent pecking. Vent pecking is one expression of cannibalism. The risk for vent pecking increases with increasing incidence of floor eggs, the layout of the nestboxes and wrongly positioned perches (Newburry, 2004; EFSA, 2005). Group size is a risk factor for both feather pecking and cannibalism. This implies that the risk for feather pecking and cannibalism is higher in non-cage systems compared to cages. On the other hand non-cage systems provide more possibilities to supply distraction material to reduce mislead pecking behaviour. Conventional cages for laying hens provide a barren environment to the birds and do not enable the hens to carry out their species specific behaviour. For this reason this housing system will be banned in Europe in the year New types of cages have been developed that meet the demands of laying hens more. These cages are furnished with nest areas, litter areas and perches. Also the EU-Directive 1999/74 sets rules for more usable area per bird. In conventional cages this has to be at least 550 cm 2 /bird, in furnished cages (in the Directive mentioned as enriched cages) the minimum usable area has to be 750 cm 2 /hen. One of the discussions on furnished cages is focussing on the litter area. As this is a limited area with only very little loose material, it is questioned if this meets the demands of the birds. In non- 130

131 cage systems at least 1/3 of the usable area is covered with litter, providing the birds ample space to carry out there scratching and dustbathing behaviour. First of all the risk for bone fractures is high, both in cages and in non-cage systems. This has to do with both the high production level and the locomotory activity of the hens. The high production level causes (temporarily) decalcification of the bones. Low locomotory activity, e.g. in cages, also leads to weaker bones. The lower bone strength increases the risk for bone fractures due to accidents in the hen house or caused during depopulation of the house. Studies in the UK showed that over 60 % of birds in non-cage systems appear to have old, healed broken bones. Especially jumping through the system and negotiating heights and distances are thought to be causing these broken bones. No broken bones are found after rearing, confirming that these breaks occur during the laying period (EFSA, 2005). Fresh breaks can be found in birds at the processing plant. During depopulation hesn may break bones when trapped behind cage doors, perches, feeders etc. Also bones may break due to rough handling of the hens. The majority of spent hens are transported in crates with narrow openings. These are a major cause of broken wings. As the economical value of spent hens is very limited, this is not a driving force to improve this system. Another issue are foot pad disorders. The inflammation of the food pad, known as bumble foot, usually only appears in non cage systems or cage systems with perches (especially plastic). Some genotypes are more sensible than others and also there is a distinct period in the production cycle, being weeks of age, at which the incidence reaches a peak. In older birds feat usually recover and the incidence will usually stay al a low level. Especially situations with moisture (wet litter, dirty perches or non-breathable perches) seems to increase the risk for bumble foot. In cages bumble foot is only seen when perches are present, but toe pad hyperkeratosis is seen more often than in non-cage systems (EFSA, 2005). One of the main causes of mortality in laying hens is cannibalism. On the second place some reproduction disorders can be mentioned, like salpingitis and peritonitis, occurring in both cages and non-cage systems (EFSA, 2005). In cages the fatty liver syndrome is well known. Genotype can play a role in this as well. In non-cage systems smothering is an often occurring cause of death, often resulting in large numbers dying at the same time. Reduced resistance to diseases may be the result of various parasites. In non-cage systems worms can be a problem. Especially in systems with free range these infections may be very hard to control. In cage systems infections with worms are very rare and insignificant. Infections with the poultry red mite occur in all systems, all countries and as far as known all over the world. Treatments are usually focussing on chemical solutions, but the disadvantage is that the mites become resistant after some time. Also there is the risk of residuals in the eggs. Infectious diseases do not occur often in cage systems, whereas the incidence of bacterial/protozoa infections like erysipelas, E.coli, pasteurellosis and Histomoniasis and Ascaridia show a marked increased prevalence in floor-kept birds compared with cages. Laying hens can stand cold very well, but as their feed conversion ratio will increase temperature in the house usually is kept within their thermoneutral zone as much as possible. As no heating takes place in layer houses, in winter time this can only be achieved by 131

132 reducing ventilation rates. This will lead to higher levels of NH3, possibly compromising bird health. Heat stress can be a problem in summer time, especially in countries with hot climates. Noncage systems provide more possibilities to the birds to perform behaviours to reduce the impact of heat (e.g. finding cooler places, spreading wings). However, in high density aviary systems problems with heat stress may occur in hot climate EFSA, 2005). This will also depend on the isolation of the house and the ventilation installed. Well isolated houses, well installed ventilation systems, including manure drying systems (bringing fresh air directly to the birds) may facilitate hens to deal with the heat. 132

133 6. Broilers 6.1. Description of common husbandry systems in Europe and their specific management Rearing Almost all broilers are kept in systems with 100% litter floors. A few flocks are kept on perforated floors. These can be concrete floors with openings to let air pass. On top of these floors litter is provided. In some systems the chicks are housed on plastic nettings or slats and no litter is provided. These systems are hardly used. Very few broilers are kept in cages. A new type of cage is the so called Patio system in which the eggs are hatched and chicks are kept for a few weeks. After hatching the chicks fall onto the litter and directly have access to food an water Deep litter The vast majority of broilers is kept in floor systems with 100% litter floors. Houses usually are artificially lighted and ventilated. Walls and roof are well insulated and the floors are concrete and covered with litter (figure 6.1). Light usually is provided by means of fluorescent light. According to EU-Directive 2007/43 light intensity should be at least 20 lux. Water is provided by means of nipples or cups (figure 6.2). About 12 birds per nipple or 1000 birds per bell drinker are advised. Feed usually is provided in pans or in tracks (4 cm track length per bird or 1,6 cm per bird for round feeders is advised). The first days feed is also scattered on paper on top of the litter, to facilitate a quick start of the chicks. Stocking density is regulated by EU-Directive 2007/43 and can be 42 kg/m 2 at the maximum. This maximum number of birds can only be kept if some strict regulations are met. In 7 consecutive flocks mortality should not exceed 1% % times age at slaughter (in days). Mortality in broilers can be divided in mortality at young age, usually as a result of poor chick quality, and mortality at later age, usually due to metabolic disorders. Apart from feeders, drinkers and litter, no other items are provided in broiler housing. 133

134 Figure 6.1: Traditional deep litter system in dark house (photo: ASG) Figure 6.2: Nipple drinker system and pan feeding system for broilers (photo: Thea van Niekerk) Other systems The deep litter systems sometimes do not have a closed concrete floor. In the Netherlands some houses have ventilation systems blowing air through the litter and thus making it dry. As these houses are quite expensive and difficult to clean, not many were placed. Until recently the so called Louisiana houses were common in Germany. These were inexpensive houses without concrete floors. The floor in the house was just the soil with litter on top of it, that was only refreshed after 2 or more production cycles. The hygienic circumstances could therefore not be controlled well enough and the production results were not satisfying. The system is hardly in use anymore. In Russia many broilers are kept in cages. There is no litter in these cages. In other parts of Europe this system is not common. 134

135 A new system has been developed in The Netherlands recently: the Patio system. In this system hatching eggs are placed on elevated trays. When chicks hatch, they can jump off the trays into a litter area with food and water. The advantage is that they immediately can eat and drink and do not have to wait for the other chicks to be hatched. Chicks are housed in this system until 2 or 3 weeks of age. The stocking density in number of chicks per m2 is higher than in traditional houses (56 when depopulated at 3 weeks of age or almost 70 chicks/m2 when depopulated at 2 weeks of age). When the system is depopulated, the chicks are housed in traditional houses and reared until the desired weight. The advantage is that per house more flocks per year can be reared in this way Main a-specific management procedures in Europe A-specific aspects of housing and management Mutilations No mutilations are performed in broilers in Europe Climate Broiler houses are heated as young chicks can not maintain their body temperature. Sometimes floor heating systems are used, but in the majority of the houses local or central heating systems are used. The first day the temperature on chick level should be 30 o C. During the rearing period the temperature is lowered according to the guidelines of the breeding companies. At 27 days of age the temperature should be around 20 o C. During the first few days the houses are not or hardly ventilated, as this is not necessary for the chicks and it helps maintaining room temperature. When the chicks grow ventilation is slowly raised and temperature is lowered. The first week chicks are kept on a schedule of 23 hours light (30-40 lux) and 1 hour dark. After 7 days the chicks must be given at least a 6 hour dark period per 24 hour cycle. To be allowed to maintain the maximum stocking density ventilation and or cooling should be able to maintain a temperature that is exceeding the outdoor temperature with more than 3 o C in situations where the outdoor temperature is above 30 o C. At the end of the growing period broilers are very sensible to heat stress. Good ventilation systems and good isolation of the henhouse can help to reduce the risk. Proper management can prevent casualties Human-animal relationship Apart from the daily care there is not much contact between humans and broilers. As broilers live only a short time, vaccinations are hardly given. Medication, if necessary, is mostly provided through the drinking water. A management practice that is carried out in some circumstances is depopulating the house in two shifts. First the heaviest birds are slaughtered. Then the other birds can be kept in the house for another week. The advantage is that higher stocking densities can be realised 135

136 without exceeding the legal limits. The disadvantage is extra stress for the remaining birds and the risk for disease in the remaining part of the flock Nutritional Broilers usually are fed ad libitum. Sometimes a mild restriction is applied during a part of the growing period to stimulate compensatory growth in the last part of the growing period Breeding aspects A large amount of the welfare problems in broilers are related to genetic factors. These comprises among others: metabolic disorders such as sudden death syndrome and ascites, skeletal disorders and low locomotor activity. These problems are especially present in the fast growing breeds. The slow growing breeds usually have better locomotory abilities and less leg problems Geographical distribution In table 6.1 the number of broilers and the number of farms per EU-country are given for the years 2003, 2005 and 2007 (Eurostat, 2010). A striking decline in number of farms can be seen in Bulgaria, Greece, France, Italy, Lithuania, Austria, Portugal and Slovenia. As the number of birds has not reduced, one can conclude that farm size has increased. For Romania the number of farms in 2007 is not clear (Eurostat gives the extreme number of 2,175,310, which probably contains a typing error). As a consequence the total number of farms for all countries is lower than in In general one can conclude that farms tend to become larger. In number of broilers there is some fluctuation over the years, but overall they seem quite stable. 136

137 Table 6.1: Number of broilers (x 1,000) and number of farms per European country (Eurostat, 2009) Number of broilers (x1,000) Number of farms Belgium 18,190 21,070 20,160 1,230 1,280 1,090 Bulgaria 9,760 7,950 7, ,430 51,580 17,480 Czech Republic 18,220 16,170 18, Denmark 12,210 11,910 11, Germany (including ex-gdr from 1991) 56,390 56,760 61,310 11,580 9,820 9,000 Estonia 1, Ireland 9,700 8,080 8,330 1,350 1, Greece 25,650 21,540 24, , , ,280 Spain 104,440 96,970 89,610 70,190 61,730 65,170 France 138, , ,910 91,100 75,820 60,510 Italy 107,600 90,390 93,260 90,310 43,680 52,220 Cyprus 3,610 3,380 3,090 4,040 3,740 3,740 Latvia 930 1,170 1, , Lithuania 2,500 4,020 3,850 37,330 31,240 19,180 Luxembourg (Grand-Duché) Hungary 13,250 9,770 9, Malta Netherlands 42,290 44,500 43, Austria 5,590 5,580 6,840 3,260 2,740 1,340 Poland 123,320 83,280 85, , , ,120 Portugal 19,250 18,120 15, , , ,140 Romania 15,430 16,560 28, , ,100? Slovenia 2,600 1,710 3,430 4,890 4,350 3,000 Slovakia 8,190 7,380 7,660 1,180 1,030 1,100 Finland 6,050 5,470 5, Sweden 5,910 7,500 6, United Kingdom 113, , ,740 2,050 1,970 1,830 Norway 8,110 8,880 12, Switzerland 5,060 1,050 Total 873, , ,110 1,519,270 1,539,110 1,141, Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare The EFSA-report (2010, in preparation) on the Welfare aspects of genetic selection in broilers lists various risk factors affecting welfare of broilers. They state that most of the welfare problems in broilers are caused by multiple factors, both genetic and environmental/management. At the start of the growing period early mortality may occur, which is related to egg size and shell quality and can be reduced by proper screening of hatching eggs. Mortality in older birds often is related to metabolic disorders, caused by rapid growth. Also birds may be culled due to leg disorders. Bad litter quality may cause foot pad dermatitis or other skin lesions. 137

138 The risk of thermal discomfort increases when birds get older, due to there growing body weight, better insulation and higher heat production. In young chicks, that are not yet fully capable of maintaining their body temperature, thermal discomfort may be due to bad management and low temperature in the house. In older birds thermal discomfort usually is heat stress. Behavioural restrictions play a role when birds get older and space per bird decreases. Especially in the last week of the production there is evidence of reduced activity due to lack of space, barren environment and reduced locomotory capacity (EFSA, 2010, De Jong, 2010, unpublished data). With growing age, litter quality usually diminishes, resulting in higher risk for foot pad dermatitis and skin lesions. With growing age and decreasing litter quality the air quality is likely to decrease (humidity, ammonia and dust) 138

139 7. Broiler breeders (for this chapter a preliminary EFSA report is used: welfare aspects of genetic selection in broilers; EFSA, 2010) 7.1. Description of common husbandry systems in Europe and their specific management Hatchery Broiler breeder flocks are composed of females and males, each coming from separate selection lines. Eggs from both selection lines are hatched. After hatching chicks from each line are sexed (depending on the genotype by vent sexing or feather sexing). Male chicks from the female lines and female chicks from the male lines are removed, killed and disposed of. Depending on the genotype males from the male line undergo one or more mutilations. Often beaks are trimmed, using infrared at the hatchery or a hot or cold blade or electro-cautery devices (Henderson et al., 2009). One or more toes are removed using a hot blade ore hot wire, and the onset of spurs are briefly pushed at a hot spot to prevent growth. The number of toes removed or whether despurring is carried out depends on the genotype. Females from the female lines are often not beak trimmed. Apart from these treatments chicks are vaccinations against Marek's disease and in many countries also infectious bronchitis and Newcasle disease. Chicks are transported to the rearing farm Rearing A very small number of broiler breeders is reared in cages, but this is not a standard practice. The vast majority is housed on floor systems. Rearing houses in Europe are usually mechanically ventilated. Apart from Sweden (where daylight is required by law) the houses have no windows. The walls and roofs of the houses are insulated and the floors are concrete. The total number of birds per house or farm is usually , but these are housed in several pens of birds. These pens house either males or females as these are reared separately to facilitate a proper feeding regime (Laughlin, 2009). To have a suitable climate for the chicks, the houses are heated. Many countries have whole house heating, maintaining a temperature of about 30 o C on day 1 and then gradually decreasing this to o C at the end of the rearing period (usually at weeks of age, sometimes already at 16 weeks of age). In houses with zonal brooder systems similar temperatures are maintained, although temperatures under the brooders can be slightly higher. Some European countries, particularly in the East, have open-sided houses. For rearing broilers usually no slatted floors are used. The entire floor of the house is covered with litter, usually wood shavings, peat or straw. Sufficient ventilation is essential to keep the litter in good condition. This is necessary as wet litter can result in microbial diseases and skin problems like foot-pad dermatitis or hock burns. Biosecurity, hygiene and disease control are essential in broiler breeding flocks, as they are the basis of the health and quality of all broiler flocks. 139

140 At least one country (Sweden) requires the presence of perches from day one on, but in the majority of countries perches or elevated slatted floors are introduced at 3-6 weeks of age. The purpose of these perches or slats is to accustom the birds to different levels to facilitate nesting behaviour in the laying period. Water is usually supplied automatically by nipple drinkers, bell drinkers or cups. Feed can be supplied in pans, tracks or by means of a spin feeder. Most countries have no regulations for the stocking density of broiler breeders during rearing. Usually stocking densities are 4-8 birds/m2 (males) and 7-10 birds/m2 (females) respectively, except for open-sided houses, where lower stocking densities are applied. Especially when spot brooders are used, higher stocking densities can be observed in the first week or weeks. During the first few days continuous or near-continuous light is provided, to enable chicks to find their way around. After that a light schedule is applied, providing the chicks 8 hours light. Light intensity is high in the first week ( lux) and lower (10-20 lux) later. One breeder company recommends 5 lux only. For non-beak trimmed birds light intensity usually is not higher than 10 lux. During the first week birds have free access to water. To prevent spilling of water or overconsumption, probably as a reaction to feed restriction, water is only available around feeding time and possibly also at some more occasions during the day. Per 8-10 birds one nipple drinker is recommended. In case of bell drinkers cm per birds is recommended. In hot climate more space is required. Mortality in the rearing period is about 507% for females and 8% for males (EFSA, 2010). The main causes of death or culling are leg problems, "runts"(too small birds) or beak deformations as a result of beak trimming. Also some birds of the wrong sex are culled. Usually there are about 1-2% sex errors, but not all of them are detected during rearing. Selection culling in male flocks can reach 10-20%, but is much lower in female flocks (Re)production The production period usually starts at weeks of age and ends at weeks of age. Natural mating is common in EU countries. Common groups sizes during the production period are birds. Several groups can be housed in the same house, resulting in 10,000-30,000 birds per house. One farm can comprise one or more houses. In constructing and managing broiler breeder houses a lot of emphasis is put on biosecurity, disease control and hygiene Partial slatted floor system The majority of the broiler breeders are housed in systems with partly slatted floors. Part of the floor is covered with litter. The slatted floor is elevated and positioned over a manure pit. About half of the farms have 2/3 litter and 1/3 slatted floor. For the other farms the proportion slatted floor varies between 20 and 60% of the total floor area. As matings usually take place on the litter floor, it is recommended to restrict the slatted floor area to a maximum of 50%. 140

141 The litter floor usually is covered with wood shavings or straw. The slats should not be more than 60 cm above the litter. Nests are positioned on the slats and can either be individual nests with litter and manual egg collection, or group nests with automatic egg collection belts. Group nests are more common in EU countries. For individual nests 4-5 birds per nest are recommended, for group nests hens are recommended (depending on the size of the nest). Perches are hardly installed. Feed usually is provided in tracks or pans in the litter area or both on the litter floor and the slatted floor. Breeding companies usually advise 15 cm feeder space for hens and 20 cm feeder space for males (panfeeders: hens/pan or 8 males/pan). Males and females are usually fed separately. Males usually have their own feeder system, being pans installed at a height that hens can't reach. Another way of separate feeding males and females is by means of a grill or other device over the feed trough (figure 7.1). Females can put their head through, males can't. Figure 7.1. Separate feeding of broiler breeders: feed trough with bar preventing the males to eat and male feeding pans (too high positioned for the females) (photo: ASG) Separate feeding is applied to be able to control body weight and growth of males and females (Hocking, 2009). Males have a weight of about 2.6 kg at 18 weeks of age and 5-6 kg at 60 weeks of age. Females weight approximately 1.9 kg at 18 weeks of age and kg at 60 weeks of age. To control weights birds feed restriction needs to be applied. 141

142 To stimulate foraging behaviour and mating in the litter, farmers may scatter grain or oyster shells in the litter in the middle of the afternoon. Water is provided on the slatted floors. Bell drinkers are probably still most common, but nipples and cups are becoming more popular. It is advised to have birds per bell drinker, 15 birds per cup or 6 birds per nipple. To prevent spilling and overdrinking water supply is restricted in time. During feeding until at least 2 hours after feeding and during one hour before lights are turned off. Stocking density range from 5 to 8.5 birds/m 2. apart from the Netherlands (max. 7.7 birds/m 2 and at least 300cm2/bird) and Sweden (7.5 birds/m 2 ) no regulation by legislation is present Cages A few farms in Germany and The Netherlands use specially designed furnished cages to house broiler breeders. These cages are equipped with perches, nests, feeders and drinkers, but no litter is present. Group size is birds per group. In these systems natural mating occurs. More conventional cages are used on very few farms, mainly in Eastern Europe. These cages are not furnished. Hens are inseminated artificially. Less than 1% of the parent stock in Europe is housed in this system Main a-specific management procedures in Europe A-specific aspects of housing and management Mutilations In general beak trimming is performed on both males and females. Males are despurred and one or two claws are removed to prevent injuries Depending on the amount of mutilations feather cover of the hens is more or less damaged. Nevertheless the feather cover becomes worse from the second half of the laying period onwards. Apart from mating also feather pecking plays a role. Feather finally is also influenced by genotyope of the birds Climate Standard broiler breeder houses are force ventilated and usually have no windows. In Sweden however, daylight is required by law. French broiler breeder houses often have windows and in Italy, France, Spain and Eastern Europe there are also open-sided houses, where daylight can enter the house. Light intensity usually is lux, for non-beak trimmed hens lux can be applied. The length of the light period is increased from 8 hours light in the rearing period to hours light at 28 weeks of age. For houses with daylight other schedules may be applied. Houses usually have insulted roofs and walls and concrete floors. The room temperature is kept on approximately 20 o C Human-animal relationship In the rearing period birds are handled for various vaccinations and sometimes for beak treatment. Birds are also handled to collect blood samples, usually taken prior to 142

143 transportation to the production farm at around weeks of age, to check for any infections. In the production period blood samples are taken at regular intervals (every 12 weeks) for (compulsory) monitoring of diseases. In general in Europe vaccinations in the production period are limited to those against infectious bronchitis Nutritional Already in the rearing period broiler breeders are kept on restricted feeding, to prevent them from growing far too heavy, with detrimental effects to their health, fertility and welfare (Decuypere et al., 2006). Males and females follow separate feeding programs according to carefully set target bodyweights per age. To achieve this feed intake is restricted to approximately one-third to one-half of the intake of an ad libitum fed broiler breeder. The entire daily ration can be consumed in less than 30 minutes. The most severe restriction usually occurs during week 7-8 to (De Jong and Jones, 2006). Except for Sweden and the UK, where legislation requires daily feeding, skip-a-day feeding programs may be used. To minimize the negative side effects of feed restriction various types of diets are used, including dilution of diets (to reduce nutritive density), limiting the number of feedings per day or the total time feed is available. Feeder space per birds is approximately 5 cm until 5 weeks of age. Then it is increased to 10 cm per birds and from 10 weeks of age 15 cm per bird is provided. Maximum feed distribution time is recommended to be no more than 3-4 minutes. These measures are taken to prevent aggression and thus injuries around feeding. To control the body weight of the birds, they are restricted to 70% of the ad libitum starting after peak production has been reached (De Jong et al., 2005). Feed is provided daily and the amount is depending on egg production and body condition. It is recommended to distribute the feed in 3-4 minutes over de feeders to prevent aggression Breeding aspects Around 20% of the parent stock for one of the breeder companies in Europe and around 98% of the parent stock in France comprises dwarf "mini" female broiler breeders. These hens are small and consequently have a lower body weight ( kg at 18 weeks of age and kg at the end of the production period). Compared to conventional broiler breeders the stocking density in terms of weight per area is lower (27-29 kg/m 2 compared to 39 kg/m 2 for conventional breeders). Feed restriction in the laying period is less compared to conventional broiler breeders. Mortality in dwarf females is about 5% and during the 45 weeks production the average mortality is 6-7%. some of the dwarf birds (but not the majority) are housed in cages. Parent stock for production of the slow growing types of broilers is only a small portion of the broiler breeder production in Europe, although it may be significant in some countries, especially France ("Label Rouge", 14% of broiler production). Parent stock of "Label Rouge" broilers are dwarf females and normally sized males. Housing and management is similar to that of normal sized intensive types of broiler breeders (apart from the stocking density, that is higher). 143

144 Organic broiler breeder farms are very rare in Europe. Some can be found in Switzerland, Austria and Germany Other issues Before transferred to the production house, a selection of the males take place, based on body weight (not to low and not too heavy), feather cover and body, leg and toe condition. Depending on country and individual farm management between 8 and 11 % males are housed, with the aim to have a maximum of 7-9.5% males at 23 weeks of age, when egg production starts. Selection of males continues throughout the production period. From the initial 7-9 % males at 23 weeks of age only 6% is remaining at 60 weeks of age. Selection criteria are reproduction activity (non-mating males) and leg condition. Male mortality during the production period is about 10%. About 15-25%$ of the males are culled due to selection. so called "spiking" is a common procedure around 40 weeks of age. Inactive males in bad condition are replaced by younger mature males. This usually leads to better fertility, but also to aggression both between males and between males and females. Also spiking introduces a risk for contamination. Female mortality is about 9% throughout the laying period, with variation between 4 and 12 %. About 1-2% of the females is culled, making a total mortality of 5-14%. Culled birds are usually killed on farm by manual neck dislocation. In some countries (Sweden) stunning prior to neck dislocation is required. In the upcoming EC-regulation on the killing of animals, manual or mechanical cervical dislocation will only be allowed for poultry up to 5 kg live weight (EC, 2009). This will apply for male broiler breeders weighing more than 5 kg. Although broiler breeders usually are well muscled at the end of lay, and thus have a potential value, there are no special slaughterhouses. Instead broiler breeders are slaughtered in plants that can slaughter spent laying hens, broilers, broiler breeders and sometimes turkeys. To transport the broiler breeders to the appropriate plant sometimes requires long travel distances. Still then, due to the large variation between breeds and between males and females in shape of the bodies, problems may occur in the slaughtering process Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare In the EFSA report in preparation on Welfare aspects of genetic selection in broilersthe main critical points for animal welfare are extensively described. For broiler breeders main critical points are related to their genetic background. This makes a substantial feed restriction necessary. Another critical point may be the mutilations carried out on the males to reduce damage to the females during mating.finally the high rate of mortality or culling of males during the production period is a welfare issue. 144

145 8. Turkeys 8.1. Description of common husbandry systems in Europe and their specific management All aspects of the welfare of turkeys being reared for the table, from their arrival at the farm to their arrival at the slaughterhouse are summarized in a report on the welfare of turkeys of the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC, 1995). Information in this chapter has been used from this report and has been actualized for the today s situation. Furthermore, standards for the welfare of turkeys have been formulated in different countries across Europe (e.g. RSPCA welfare standards for turkeys, 2010, Bundeseinheitliche Eckwerte für eine freiwillige Vereinbarung zur Haltung von Jungmasthühnern (Broiler, Masthähnchen) und Mastputen, 1999, PPE Verordening welzijnsnormen vleeskalkoenen, 2003) Rearing Three types of turkey production and management systems are described below: conventional (enclosed) housing, pole barn housing and free-range. These descriptions are, of necessity, fairly broad and many variations exist in practice. For example, many farmers rear a relatively small number of birds (e.g. about 100) for Christmas in sheds and barns which are used for other purposes at other times of the year Conventional (enclosed) housing The majority of parent stock turkeys and commercial turkeys are kept in windowless houses or houses with side curtains, with modern systems of environmental control (fig. 8.1). These systems provide for precise control of heating, ventilation and lighting. Ventilation systems are designed to provide air containing sufficient oxygen for the normal growth and development of the turkeys and to remove excess ammonia, carbon dioxide, dust, moisture and heat. Houses may carry up to 25,000 birds and on larger farms the turkeys are usually distributed amongst several houses. Birds reared on one of these farms are normally all the same age. An "all in/all out" stocking policy helps to prevent diseases being passed from one group of birds to another. On a conventional (enclosed) farm one person may be responsible for about 30,000 birds, depending on the degree of automation of the environmental control, feeding and drinking systems. Turkeys are grown to a wide range of weights and sizes. The normal slaughter age for hen turkeys is 9-11 weeks (medium strains) and weeks (heavy strains), for stags is weeks (medium strains) and weeks (heavy strains). Stocking density is standard adjusted by replacing turkeys per gender at four weeks of age but can also be adjusted during rearing by removing some birds for early slaughter. The latter is not practiced very often. Injurious pecking behaviour can be a serious problem in conventional (enclosed) housing but it is usually controlled by reducing the light intensity within the turkey house rather than by beak-trimming Pole barn housing Some turkey parent stock and the majority of commercial turkeys grown for Christmas on small farms, are reared in pole barns (fig. 8.2). Consequently, pole barns accommodate a small proportion of the turkey population but on a relatively large proportion of the production units. The systems of environmental control within pole barn housing are rudimentary. Turkey poults intended for housing in pole barns are usually reared in brooder houses (similar to conventional turkey housing) until they are 6 weeks of age, by which time 145

146 they do not need additional heat. Once in the pole barn, the birds are subject to natural daylight (which may be supplemented during the winter months with electric light) and there is often little control of temperature or ventilation. The labour requirement in pole barns is higher and the stocking density lower than in conventional (enclosed) housing. Injurious pecking can be a problem and is usually controlled by beak-trimming. In an attempt to provide a better environment and reduce injurious behaviour some growers provide vegetable material or other objects for the turkeys to investigate and manipulate. Figure 8.1: Conventional housing system for turkeys (photo: USDA) Figure 8.2: Pole barn system for turkeys Free-range Housing for free-range birds is usually of a low cost, basic standard, sometimes similar to pole barns. Natural daylight and green food are available on the range, and may not be 146

147 provided in the house. The use of slow growing strains of turkey, low nutrient density feeds, low stocking density and a greater age at slaughter are normal. Figure 8.2: Free range turkeys (photo: Main a-specific management procedures in Europe A-specific aspects of housing and management Mutilations The vast majority of parent stock and commercial turkeys produced in Europe are beaktrimmed. They are reared for meat in conventional (enclosed) houses in carefully controlled environments which reduce aggression. Breeding turkeys and commercial turkeys kept for meat in pole barns and free-range systems, are also often routinely beak-trimmed to prevent or control injurious behaviour. Breeding birds require light to stimulate lay and turkeys reared in pole barns and extensive systems are subject to natural light levels. Light can increase the risk of aggression and injurious behaviour Climate The extent to which the environment within the turkey house provides adequate comfort for the birds is important to their welfare. When turkeys are housed in large groups in buildings with controlled environments it is particularly important that the system satisfies the birds' 147

148 requirements. An imbalance in any factor may affect welfare but the risk of the birds suffering distress usually occurs when a combination of environmental factors are outside acceptable limits. Good management and good stockmanship are essential. In European climatic conditions, temperatures alone are unlikely to pose a serious threat to the birds' welfare. However, high temperatures in conjunction with other environmental influences may lead to heat stress within conventional houses. The risk for heat stress increases from Northern European Member States to Southern European Member States. The design of ventilation systems has a major influence on bird welfare. Ventilation systems are designed to provide air containing sufficient oxygen for the normal growth and development of the turkeys and to remove excess ammonia, carbon dioxide, moisture, dust and heat. In conventional (enclosed) houses with controlled environments the ventilation system should be sufficiently flexible to cope with the changing needs of the stock. In cold weather the ventilation system must deliver air to the birds without allowing them to become chilled. In hot weather the system must have sufficient capacity to prevent the temperature in the building rising to excessive levels. The efficiency of the ventilation system also has an important influence on litter condition. Litter condition affects turkey welfare as will be explained later on. In hot weather, a fast airspeed at bird level can be used to moderate the effects of high temperature. Additional air movement can be provided by using recirculation fans to blow air around the house at bird level. This strategy is especially important in naturally ventilated houses and is often used in turkey buildings. Shallow panting is a normal response to increased environmental temperature and should be expected for short periods of time amongst a proportion of birds during the summer months. In these situations turkeys pant to prevent their body temperature from rising. Turkeys encounter heat stress when they are in a hot environment and are unable to prevent body temperature from rising. The efficiency with which birds can lose heat by panting is greatly influenced by the relative humidity of the environment. Panting will not be effective when the relative humidity is high. It is for this reason that the risk of heat stress is greatest when both the temperature and the relative humidity are elevated. Light, both in terms of photo period and intensity, is a major factor in relation to the welfare of turkeys grown for meat and those reared for breeding purposes. If light intensity is increased, turkeys become more active but the incidence of aggression and injurious pecking is also increased, as is the likelihood of body damage; alternatively, if light intensity is reduced, aggression is considerably lessened and beak-trimming can be reduced but birds are also less active and may be unable to investigate their surroundings adequately. Turkeys are aggressive birds and producers of meat birds use low light levels to help to control aggression. Very low light levels and routine beak-trimming are undesirable, however until methods of avoiding these problems are devised it may sometimes be necessary to use a light level which is dim enough to prevent injurious behaviour in turkeys which have not been beak-trimmed. In practice, light levels are adjusted to the level where injurious pecking will not yet start. Lighting programmes are used by turkey breeders to regulate the birds' breeding behaviour and maximise the production of fertile eggs. In lightproof houses these programmes usually require the birds' environment to be lit for 8 to 15 hours at a minimum intensity of 25 lux. Turkeys kept in these conditions are usually beak-trimmed to avoid injurious pecking. Breeding birds may also be kept in naturally lit pole barn housing. Such birds are beaktrimmed to avoid injurious pecking. Present lighting regimes in relation to breeding turkeys are not expected to cause welfare problems. 148

149 The lighting programmes used for meat birds in conventional (enclosed) houses are quite different from the regimes for breeding birds. Typical intensities at brooding are between 20 and 25 lux for the first few days to encourage activity and feeding, reducing gradually to about 10 lux or less after a week or so. The rearing sheds are lit to about 1-4 lux, although some companies use slightly higher intensities. Most of the larger producers adopt a period of darkness during each 24 hours and there is also evidence that intermittent lighting patterns or a longer dark period encourage activity and help to improve leg health. Turkeys spend their lives in contact with litter and their health and welfare are closely linked to its quality. Poor management can result in wet or capped litter and contact with this may predispose to conditions such as pododermatitis (foot pad dermatitis), breast blisters, focal ulcerative dermatitis and leg deformities. High ammonia concentrations at bird level can predispose to respiratory and ocular diseases. The management of the litter in a turkey shed is therefore of the utmost importance. Buildings should be constructed in such a way as to minimise condensation and ventilation levels should be maintained, with the addition of supplementary heating in winter if required, to ensure that the atmosphere in the shed does not become excessively humid. Wet litter is particularly common around badly designed or maintained drinkers and stockmen must take measures to rectify such problems before birds suffer. Usually, stockmen will add fresh litter during the production period Human-animal relationship The stockman is the most significant influence on the welfare of the animals in his or her care for the turkeys. It is not possible for the stockman to look at each bird individually during routine inspection but a good indication of flock health must be gained. Usually, turkeys houses are inspected at least twice a day. In this way sick, weak and dead birds are identified and are removed from the flock. When farmers decide that there is a good chance of a sick turkey recovering, it may be worth isolating the bird in a hospital pen. Lighting levels should be sufficient to ensure that all birds are clearly visible and encouraged to move during inspection Nutritional Knowledge of the nutrient requirements of turkeys has advanced and diets to exploit the genetic potential for rapid growth can be formulated with great precision. Turkeys produced for meat now grow faster because of these nutritional developments. Different feeding strategies are employed within the industry to control the nutrient intake of breeder flocks. These management techniques usually involve limiting the availability of feed, especially to the older males. Their intention is to slow down growth rate, thus reducing the likelihood of leg disorders, and to maximise breeder fecundity. Enteric disorders which result in diarrhoea can quickly result in a deterioration in litter quality. The aetiology of diarrhoea is not clearly understood and it is possible that the disorder is caused by infectious or nutritional factors or a combination of these or other unknown factors. It is known that feed of inappropriate composition can lead to poor digestion, diarrhoea and excessive nitrogen excretion with adverse effects on the litter and stockmen should ensure that the diet is properly balanced. 149

150 Breeding aspects Stock is selected for fitness and welfare traits (e.g. skeletal integrity, cardiovascular fitness and liveability), efficiency (e.g. yield and feed conversion), reproductive performance (e.g. egg production, fertility, hatchability) and quality traits (e.g. meat quality, feathering). The industry prefers artificial insemination to reduce injuries of hens. After milking or insemination turkeys appear to settle quickly into their normal behavioural patterns. Artificial insemination is carried out only by competent personnel who take care to avoid injury and unnecessary disturbance to the birds Other issues Present and proposed approval procedures for vaccines and veterinary medicines may result in some adverse effects on turkey welfare. Welfare may be adversely affected because some apparently efficacious medications are not approved more quickly. It is also possible that new products may not be developed because of the high cost of generating data. A large threat for the turkey industry in Europe is the occurrence of histomoniasis (blackhead) and the lack of allowed medication. In the application for product licences by pharmaceutical companies, turkeys are considered a minor species. Approval is usually sought for chickens and only exceptionally for turkeys. Improvements shoulde be made to the licensing procedures which will encourage the timely application for new or existing products which would be effective for turkeys Geographical distribution In table 8.1 the number of turkeys per EU-country is given for the years 2006 and 2008 (Eurostat, 2010). The overall production volume in the EU was more or less stable. In Germany and Italy production volume increased whereas production volume in France and United Kingdom decreased. Main turkey producing EU-countries are France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, Poland, Portugal, The Netherlands and Hungary. Table 8.1: Number of slaughtered turkeys (x 1,000) per European country in 2006 and 2008 (Source: FAO database) Number of turkeys (x1,000) Belgium 1,200 * Bulgaria Czech Republic 2,732 1,150 Denmark 33 1 Germany 43,000 50,000 Ireland 5,000 5,000 Greece Spain 3,253 3,280 France 72,748 62,

151 Italy 26,797 29,959 Cyprus Lithuania Hungary 10,075 10,172 Malta Netherlands 10,000 10,400 Austria 2,429 1,900 Poland 12,000 12,000 Portugal 11,000 11,450 Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden United Kingdom 17,232 14,925 * data not available 8.4. Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare Feather pecking and cannibalism Domestic turkeys housed in groups often perform injurious pecking (feather-pecking, cannibalism and head-pecking) which can become so severe that death occurs or culling is necessary (Hester et al., 1987; Classen et al., 1994; Hughes and Grigor, 1996; Lewis et al., 1998a). Wing feathers start to grow and become visible for the turkeys at four days of age. Wing pecking often starts at this age. The reason is not clear. Light intensity is high (about Lux) when turkey poults are placed into the rearing house. At four days of age light intensity is reduced on a regular basis to 5 10 Lux to avoid wing pecking. Feather pecking and cannibalism may also occur at older ages. No difference in feather pecking behaviour and cannibalism has been observed between heavy strain and medium strain turkeys. Breeding companies don t select for injurious pecking very straight. Injured parent stock turkeys are removed from the flock as is practiced in commercial flocks. By this method, pecking turkeys stay in the flock. Up to now, it is not possible to select turkeys with high pecking activity because parent stock turkeys are kept in large groups. Housing and management may affect injurious pecking. The majority of the turkeys are housed in curtain sided turkey houses or turkey house with air inlet valves. In The Netherlands some turkey houses have an additional veranda (wintergarten) (fig. 8.3). Very often, in common turkey houses are with an additional veranda, daylight has free entrance. Light is very important to control injurious pecking behaviour, especially light intensity and light source. In houses with mechanical ventilation combined with air inlets, light intensity can be controlled easily, however in curtain sided turkey houses control of light intensity is almost impossible and as a consequence injurious pecking can t be controlled. Reducing light intensity to 1 lux does significantly reduce injurious pecking. A different way to decrease the occurrence of injurious pecking is environmental enrichment. Injurious pecking may be reduced by redirecting beak related behaviour to the enrichments. From 1997 to 2000 comprehensive research has been conducted in turkeys with light (light intensity, green/blue lighting, high frequent FL lighting, light bulbs and sodium lighting) and enrichments (rope, chains, bales of wooden material, providing whole wheat in the litter, cereal blocks and 151

152 perches) from four weeks of age onwards at Wageningen UR Livestock Research (Veldkamp and Kiezebrink, 1997; 1998a; 1998b; 1999; 2000 Veldkamp, 1998a, 1998b; 2000). Moreover, research has been conducted with a veranda system (Veldkamp and Kiezebrink, 2005). Large variations in pecking behaviour have been observed between different turkey flocks. No difference in pecking behaviour has been observed between male and female turkeys and between beak trimmed and non-beak trimmed turkeys. However, pecking behaviour in nonbeak trimmed turkeys resulted in more damage to the birds and a higher mortality due to cannibalism. In most of the experiments the onset of wing pecking started at four days of age. At this age, first wing feathers develop and veins appear visible. Environmental enrichment at young age would probably have a beneficial effect to redirect pecking behaviour at a young age (4 days) but this has not yet been conducted in research. Light intensities over 5 lux resulted in many damages and high mortality in turkeys that were non-beak trimmed. A lighting schedule of 16 hours of light and 8 hours of darkness resulted in more injurious pecking compared to a continuous lighting schedule. Different types of environmental enrichments didn t have much effect on pecking behaviour. Turkeys pay attention to the playing objects just for a short time after installing. Attractiveness of the objects disappeared after some hours or days. Abrasive material in the feeders, meant to blunt the beaks of the turkeys, did not significantly result in blunter upper beaks and did not affect injurious pecking. Turkeys housed in a veranda system were exposed to natural daylight and stocking density was decreased due to the extra area of the veranda. Turkeys in the veranda system showed more pecking behaviour compared to the standard housing system. Figure 8.3: Additional veranda (wintergarten) for turkeys (photo: ASG) 152

153 Beak trimming Beak trimming has been applied in poultry since 60 years to avoid damage to the birds due to injurious pecking behaviour, feather pecking and cannibalism. It is very important that beak trimming is conducted with suitable material or machines and by trained people. It is also important to trim turkeys at young age and less than one third of the beak should be treated. The trimming method with a hot blade was used till 1980 s. From 1980 s to 2000 the biobeaker (generating a high voltage electrical current which is applied by two electrodes, one on each side of the beak) was used for turkey poults in the hatchery and since 2000 the upper beak of the turkeys are trimmed by use of the infrared method (IR). With this IR method infrared energy is focussed onto the top of the beak. The high intensity heat treatment penetrates through the hard outer layer (corneum) and down into the corneum generating basal tissue, which stops growing. After approximately 10 days the tip of the upper beak will soften and gradually erode away as the birds use the beak normally. The infrared beak trim method in practice is done at the hatchery by use of the so-called Poultry Service Processor. Turkey poults are also vaccinated with this processor. From studies it can be concluded that the IR method, provided not more than 1/3 of the beak is treated, results in less anatomical and histopathological changes and that this method results in minor changes in behaviour compared with the hot blade or biobeaker method. From four weeks of age the beak will regenerate and neuroma s have not been observed at older ages by use of this method. The turkeys don t suffer from chronic pain by use of the IR method. Benefits of the IR method above the hot blade or biobeaker method: stand alone carousel system (Poultry Service Processor) with very high accuracy and repeatability no open wounds after trimming, no bleeding, no infections less impact on behaviour and performance less stressful due to less catching and less treatment procedures (vaccination is conducted in the processor along with beak trimming so the number of treatments with turkey poults is reduced by use of this method) no chronic pain In the current version of the Poultry Service Processor turkey poults are carried in the processor by head holders. Nova Tech Engineering will improve the processor in short time by use of carriers relying on full body support rather than head/neck suspension. As long as the combination of factors to avoid injurious behaviour is not clear, beak trimming of the upper beak in day-old turkey poults is the only available measure to prevent cannibalism seriously. When beaks are treated, it is recommended to use the novel IR-method on day-old turkey poults, because welfare of turkeys is the least compromised by use of the IR-method compared with other beak trimming methods. The IR-method is generally applied in turkey hatcheries since Infections 153

154 Turkeys are kept on full litter systems and this implicates that turkeys have full access to fecal droppings. Bacteria grow very well in the litter layer. Some digestive diseases maybe associated by this contact with fecal droppings, such as viruses (Corona), bacteria (Clostridium, E-coli), and protozoa (Coccidiosis) which may result in intestinal problems and diarrhoea. Histomoniasis is a serious threat to the turkey industry in Europe due to the ban on the use of histostatics in turkey diets. No preventative or curative treatments are available at this moment to prevent or treat infection of turkeys with Histomoniasis. This is a serious threat for turkey health and welfare and this obstructs the development of new housing systems (e.g. veranda or free-range). Genetic progress Over decades selection of commercial turkeys has resulted in increased body weight, by an average of 2.3% per year. Similarly, the rate of progress in feed conversion ratio in the field has been in the range of 2.0 to 2.5 points per year (Havenstein et al., 2004). In the past, efficiency was the most important trait in selecting turkeys. The supply of poultry breeding stock for a wide variety of markets and environmental conditions has been the driver for the evolution of balanced breeding goals nowadays. Selection is consequently applied on a broader range of traits including: (1) Fitness and welfare traits such as skeletal integrity, cardiovascular fitness and liveability, (2) Efficiency such as yield and feed conversion, (3) Reproductive performance such as egg production, fertility and hatchability, and (4) Quality traits such as meat quality and feathering. Investments in genomics (i.e. Marker Assisted Selection) open new dimensions for future breeding programmes. Genomics can increase the accuracy of selection on all traits but particularly on those with limited recording for instance sex-limited traits, expensive recording, expressed in commercial environments or indeed only under extreme conditions such as disease challenge. It is anticipated that future strategies will be based on the combination of genomics and existing routine selection tools. Feather loss and dermatitis Litter quality is very critical in turkey production. Addition of new litter during the fattening period when litter condition is becoming worse is applied in practice. Wet litter may result in an increase of feather loss (mainly on the breast), increases the risk for focal ulcerative dermatitis and foot pad dermatitis. Daylight The entrance of daylight in turkey houses may improve social contacts between turkeys and turkeys may recognize more details in their environment when houses are lighted with daylight that contains ultraviolet radiation (Lewis et al., 2000). In national directives it is recommended to have a minimum light intensity of 20 Lux. Artificial insemination Artificial insemination is applied in parent stock. Although natural mating is possible it would result in injuries of the hens. Wild turkeys only mate a few times a year, in a commercial setting turkey hens should be mated once a week by heavy male turkeys. Artificial insemination is also in other livestock species common practice. A benefit of artificial insemination is that less male turkeys are needed in breeding stock. 154

155 Climate Turkeys are susceptible for health diseases due to suboptimal climate conditions. Health diseases in turkeys could be the result of infections with viruses (TRT, Adeno, NCD) and bacteria (ORT, E-coli, Mycoplasma and Pasteurella). Mortality Average mortality in heavy strain turkeys is on average in turkey hens about 5% and in turkey males about 8-12%. Large efforts should be taken to decrease this mortality rate along with a reduction in the use of curative antibiotics. Leg deformities High incidences of leg deformities have been observed in turkey populations recently. However, special attention on leg traits and locomotion traits in selection programmes has resulted in an improvement of leg fitness in current turkey strains. 155

156 9. Ducks 9.1. Description of common housing systems in Europe and their specific management Large differences exist in housing and management, as husbandry systems range from intensive confined houses to free-range production systems and even in some cases one after the other. In the case of mule ducks, they are raised under free range conditions, then placed in cages (Raud and Faure, 1994). The type of management systems depend on a variety of factors such as the availability of funding, labour, technology and also the market for which the ducks are destined. Breeding stock and table ducklings are normally housed in intensive, closed lightproof accommodation, which is similar in most respects to the buildings provided for other types of poultry. Nevertheless, Ducks drink and excrete more water than chickens or turkeys. It is therefore necessary to take extra measures to maintain litter floors in a dry condition. Drinkers are then located over slatted, plastic or wire flooring drained to an effluent disposal system (Cherry and Morris, 2008). To improve hygiene and reduce risk of pathological problems, ducks are often kept on slatted floor made out of wood, metal or plastic materials instead of straw or wood shaving. Large differences exist between husbandry systems for Pekin ducks, Muscovy ducks, and mule ducks Pekin ducks In Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, Pekin ducks are mainly kept in deep litter systems with straw (fig.9.1). Nevertheless in Germany, and in France for reproduction, Pekin ducks are sometimes kept on slatted floors or on partly slatted floors, for instance in association with water supply areas. In the council of Europe Recommendations both concerning Pekin and Muscovy ducks, it is stated that the whole slatted floor will be forbidden the 31th December 2010, but not the partial one and that the floor must be covered with suitable material. Pekin duck in conventional systems are kept in large groups of about 3,000 to 13,000 birds with a stocking density of about 6 to 15 birds per m² (table 9.1). For a stocking density of 15 per square meter, ducks cannot be kept on deep litter in so far as it leads to poor quality of the litter (too wet). A small proportion of Pekin ducks is kept on organic farms. In this case, groups are smaller with lower stocking densities (3.000 birds with 6-8 birds per m²). In conventional production systems, Pekin ducks have no access to an outdoor run, nor to open water. Access to an outdoor run and open water are available for ducks in the United Kingdom for free range sytem ( birds/ha; 2-4 m²/duckling), Germany (organic production), and France (Label Rouge: 2m²/duckling). In the Netherlands it is prohibited to keep ducks in a free-range system for sanitary and environmental reasons. 156

157 Figure 9.1: Ducks in deep litter system (photo: ASG) Table 9.1. Typical stocking rates and densities of ducks, according to genotype, rearing system and country (from Rodenburg et al., 2005) Genotype System Country Stocking rate (birds/m2) Stocking density (kg/m2) 1 Muscovy Conventional Germany 9 (no litter) 35 5 (litter) 19 France Muscovy Free range France 9 28 Mule Rearing France 4 16 Mule Force feeding France Pekin Conventional Germany 6 20 United Kingdom 7 (litter) 22 8 (no litter) 25 Netherlands 8 25 France Pekin Free range France 8 35 Pekin Organic United Kingdom NA Germany Stocking density means the maximum density at the end of the fattening period 2 2,500 ducks per hectare, but 5,000 ducks per hectare on well grassed outdoor runs Muscovy ducks In Muscovy ducks, in conventional systems, the slatted flooring is the most common, sometimes without litter. Ducks are kept in groups of about 3,000 to 10,000 birds. The 157

158 stocking density is about 5 to 13 birds per m² (19 to 52 kg/m²). Sexes are kept separately, but in the same house, in France and Germany. And as the females are slaughtered at younger age than the males (at around at 10 weeks), the full barn is available for the males by the end of the rearing period (thereafter). The theoretical higher stocking density is thus never reached and in fact corresponds to the total cumulative live body weight produced. In Germany, the group size in conventional systems is often smaller. In the free-range systems, produced in France under label Rouge conditions, birds are kept at a lower stocking density and group size, and birds have access to an outdoor run Mule ducks Female mule ducks are reared under similar conditions as used for conventional Muscovy duck production or they are killed immediately after hatching at the hatchery using welfare recommended methods. Male mule duck are kept for foie gras production. In mule duck production, three phases can be distinguished: the rearing period (until 10 weeks), the training to overeating period (2 weeks) and the overfeeding period (2 weeks). During the rearing period the ducks are raised in collective pens on straw and they are allowed to live outside, on grass (fig. 9.2). The size of the groups is about 2,500 birds at low stocking densities (3 to 5 m²/duckling). At the end of the growing period, the ducks are placed in individual cages or collective cages (3 to 10 birds) or small floor pens (12-15 birds) for the overfeeding period (fig. 9.3). It is now forbidden to set new individual cages and they will be fully forbidden after December 31 st, The male mule ducks have thus to be reared in collective conditions during the force feeding period (collective cages or small floor pens). Figure 9.2: Mule ducks system with straw inside and range possibilities (photo: INRA) 158

159 Figure 9.3: Individual housing of mule ducks (photo: INRA) 9.2. Main a-specific aspects of housing and management Lighting schedules The light period decreases with the age of the ducks, starting with 24 hours of light at 1 day of age (only during 3 or 4 days) and reduced to 12 hours of light at 45 days of age. But little differences can be observed according to the geographical localization and the genotype (table 9.2). The light intensities also decrease with the age of the ducks. Nevertheless, in systems with access to an outdoor run, daylight may enter the house, so light intensities will vary strongly. In the United Kingdom, it is recommended to provide heterogeneous light intensities inside the house. In general, shorter photoperiods are used in Muscovy ducks depending under rearing conditions, and lower light intensities for Muscovy due to feather pecking and cannibalism. 159

160 Table 9.2 Recommended lighting schedules and light intensities per genotype, age, and country (from Rodenburg et al., 2005). Breed Country Age Light schedule Light intensity (lux) Muscovy Germany 1-7 d 23L:1D lux 8-21 d 16L:8D 30 lux d 15L:9D 20 lux Muscovy France 1-7 d 24L lux 8-14 d 20L:4D 30 lux d 16L:8D 30 lux d 14L:10D < 5 lux Pekin France 1-7 d 24L lux 8-14 d 20L:4D 30 lux d 16L:8D 30 lux d 12L:12D 10 lux Pekin United Kingdom 18L:6D 10 lux brooder pens or Varying light 23L :1D levels in house Pekin Germany 1-7 d 24L:0D 20 lux 8-14 d 20L:4D 15 lux d 16L:8D 10 lux Pekin Netherlands 18L:6D 30 lux 2 lux in dark Feeding In general, the ducks raised on slatted floors are fed pelleted feed. Mule ducks: at the beginning of the rearing period, mule ducks are fed al libitum. Then they are feed restricting once or twice a day to train them to consume a large quantity of feed in a short period time, as will be the case during the force feeding period (hourly feed restriction). At the end of the rearing period, the amount of food distributed increase to prepare mule ducks for force feeding. The force feeding procedure consists of a period of approximately two weeks at the end of the growing period, during which the birds receive 2 meals per days, starting at 190g per meal on the first force feeding to reach about 450g per meal in the last meal 14 days later. The total amount of feed distributed during the overfeeding period is larger than the volume the ducks would eat voluntary. Corn remains the main ingredient in the force feeding diet. The composition of the diet used during the force-feeding period consists generally of corn mash diet mixed with water (Guémené and Guy, 2004). During this period, ducks are handled intensively, especially those which are in collective cages or pens. 160

161 Open water for drinking, bathing, and swimming Supplying ducks with open water seems essential on the three types of genotypes although the Pekin duck appears to be more dependent on water than the Muscovy duck and the mule duck. Open water allows expression of natural behavior as dabbing, head-dipping, bathing and swimming. Nevertheless, it can increase hygiene problems, the consumption of clean water and the volume of manure production. The Council of Europe recommends that ducks should be able to cover their head with water and to spread water over their feathers (Council of Europe, 1999a, 1999b). Nipple drinkers, bell drinkers and troughs are used in duck production. Nipple drinkers are used only for drinking and some wet-preening activities, whereas bell drinkers and troughs are also used for other water-directed activities, including dabbling, and head dipping (Cooper et al., 2002). In general, for the ducks kept on slatted floors, water is supplied with nipple- or bell drinkers Mutilations In conventional systems with slatted floors beak trimming is often used to avoid feather damage and wounding of the birds. Muscovy ducks are more aggressive than Pekin ducks and feather pecking and cannibalism are much more frequent. Thus, beak trimming and claw trimming are also practiced in free range systems. Claw trimming is used to avoid injuries during rearing, reproduction or transport. According to the council of Europe recommendation (Council of Europe, 1999a) beak trimming is not allowed in Pekin ducks, whereas it remains possible for Muscovy and mule ducks. A new technique using Infra Red can be practiced on day old ducklings. It seems to be a good alternative as in other bird species (Rochard et al., 2008). Claw trimming frequently leads to bleeding or even amputation of toes as it is routinely done with one cut per foot (Dayen and Fiedler, 1990) Temperature Ducks can tolerate a wide range of temperature but mature birds appear comfortable between about 6 C and 23 C (Cherry and Morris, 2008). During the starting period Muscovy ducks originating from countries with hot climate are more demanding in high temperatures than Pekin ducks Handling and Human-animal relationship When birds are raised in collective cages or floor pens, force feeding requires capture and handling twice a day. Repeated handling can possibly lead to a chronic stress state (Guémené et al., 2006). Picking ducks up by the legs may dislocate joints or break bones. The preferred method for handling ducks is to pick them up by their necks or by placing support on the undercarriage of the duck with ones arm, while holding the legs between the fingers. 161

162 According to the council of Europe recommendation, carrying ducks with their heads hanging downwards or by their legs alone will not be tolerated (Guéméné et al., 2004) Geographical distribution In the years from 2000 to 2008, world output of duck meat increased from around 3.5% per year from 2.88 million tons to 3.78 million tons (table 9.3). Of the 3.78 million tons of duck meat produced in 2008, 83% was produced in Asia; of this 81% were produced in China ( / source FAO). With tons produced in 2008, Europe is the second largest duck producing region. Nevertheless, European Community produced only about 12% of the world production. European duck production is very minor compared to the total European production of poultry meat (11500 vs million tons). French duck meat production, with annual production of tons accounts for more than 50% of the European production. Germany, the second producer in Europe, produced 61,000 tons while in Hungary, the third largest producer, production was about 51,000 tons ( Table 9.3: World duck production (,000 tons). Source: FAO Region Production (,000 tons) Asia 3122 China 2518 Malaysia 111 Europe 459 France 249 Germany 61 Hungary 51 World 3780 France is the world leader in foie gras production and consumption. With about 20,000 tons produced in 2007, the French production accounted for about 80% of the world production. Duck foie gras represents the greater part of the national production (98%). In Europe, the other countries with significant foie gras production were Hungary, Bulgaria and also Spain and Belgium but with only minor production. In 2007, the Hungary production was about 2,600 tons and the major part was represented by geese foie gras (1,000 tons). The Bulgarian production was about 2,000 tons and mainly represented by the duck foie gras (Agreste conjoncture)(guéméné et al.; 2007 Bien-être et élevage des palimpèdes) Breeds Ducks are kept for egg, meat and foie gras production. The duck production is mainly based on the use of common duck genotypes, especially the Pekin, which is the most common specie kept throughout the world. Muscovy is another species which can be used for meat production, especially in Europe while their hybrid the mule duck is also used, especially for foie gras and meat production in France or only meat production in Taiwan. 162

163 These duck genotypes are very different in their behavioural and physiological characteristics. Pekin duck is an aquatic duck whereas the Muscovy duck is a perching duck. Although provision of open water is important in all three type of ducks, it is quite different for Pekin ducks for behavioural reasons. The Pekin duck, as the other breeds of common ducks, originates from domestication of the mallard duck (Anas Platyrhynchos). This genotype is currently the most popular common duck in commercial meat production because it may achieve weights of up to 3.2 kg by 6 weeks. It is considered to be a multi-purpose breed because it has a high level of egg production. In Europe, the Pekin duck production is mainly located in Germany. The Muscovy duck (Cairina moschata) is a perching duck originating from the tropical regions of Central and South America. It is the only domesticated breed not derived from the Mallard. This specie has supplanted the common duck in France and Italy. The early development of the Muscovy is quite slow and it generally takes weeks to achieve market weight. There is a quite large sex dimorphism and males can be up to 45% heavier than females when they reach market weight. The difference between male and female growth rates makes single sex rearing a necessity because the sexes require separate processing. Additionally, the males in mixed sex pens can have negative effects on female growth rates through competition for food. Another disadvantage of Muscovies is a low rate of egg production. But an advantage is the high yield of a reddish, lean and flavored meat! During a period of time it was also used for foie gras production. After artificial insemination was optimized, mule ducks, which benefits from heterosis effects, was the specie of choice. Muscovies are often crossed with other breeds to produce mule ducks ( Cross breeding between the two species involving the Muscovy drake and the common female has resulted in a hybrid called the mule duck. This genotype is especially reared for the production of foie gras, but also for meat production (Raud and Faure, 1994). They are sterile hybrids Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare In the review of Rodenburg et al., (2005), it was found that a large number of factors can affect duck welfare. In conventional systems, expression of natural behavior is lower than in free-range or organic systems, but free-range system can lead to higher hygiene and health problems as well as food safety risks, or diseases originating from contact with wild migrating birds (avian influenza). The main welfare problems may be: leg problems, force feeding, feather pecking and cannibalism and associated mutilations. Feather pecking and cannibalism can lead to feather damage, injuries and increased mortality in ducks. In Muscovy ducks, feather pecking is an important welfare problem, especially 163

164 when the ducks are kept on slatted floors without litters. In fact, such poor housing conditions avoid them to express their natural behaviours as foraging and feeding (Knierim et al., 2002). Keeping ducks on slatted floors can lead to leg problems. If ducks are kept on deep litter system, the quality of the litter is important as bad litter quality can lead to hygiene, food quality and health problems (Raud and Faure, 1994). Especially litter has to be maintained dry. A combined litter system including a deep litter zone (straw or shaving) and a slatted floor area seems to be effective. Muscovy ducks may have leg problems presumably related with the high growth rate and a poor stimulating environment that prevent locomotion possibilities (low light intensities, no litter, etc.). In Pekin ducks, a main issue is that water supply systems should allow them to express their natural behavior, For this purpuse showers, bell-drinkers, or troughs are used. Nevertheless, water provision has to be located on a slatted floor to maintain dry litter and prevent health and hygiene risks. Housing Muscovy ducks on straw as Pekin ducks may be a good solution to prevent or decrease the problems of feather pecking and legs problems. With regard to the mule ducks kept for foie gras production, the individual cages will be forbidden and ducks will be kept in group cages. The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare produced a report on the welfare aspects of foie gras production for European Commission (SCAHAW, 1998) and concluded that force feeding is detrimental to the welfare of birds. Nevertheless, the SCAHAW stated that there is no conclusive evidence as to the aversive nature of the force feeding process (Lang et al., 2007b). An article has been published with a much more balance statement (Lang et al., 2007a). The standing committee of the European Council adopted three specific recommendations concerning waterfowl in These three recommendations specially concern domestic ducks (T-AP[94/3]), Muscovy ducks; mule ducks (T-AP[95/20]) and domestic geese (T- AP[95/5]). Article 9 paragraph 3 of the Convention states that these recommendations have come into force in December 1999, and recommendations have to apply to new accommodation or the replacement of existing systems from 31 st December All husbandry systems will be required to meet the requirements of the recommendations from the 31 December It has been extended in France to The most important implications of the recommendations are: - The use of completely slatted floor and individual battery cages will be forbidden. - The production of foie gras can only be carried out where it is current practice and then only in agreement with the already existing legislation in the member states concerned. - Feed restrictions strategies, ahemeral rhythms and split photoperiods are to be banned. 164

165 - Mutilation of ducks shall be prohibited and therefore beak and claw trimming are not allowed for common ducks and geese and only tolerated under strict restrictions for Muscovy and mule ducks. - Waterfowl should not be plucked alive. - Carrying birds their heads hanging downwards or by the legs alone will not be tolerated. 165

166 10. Geese Description of common housing systems in Europe and their specific management The management of the breeder stock is very important in geese production as it can have a major impact on reproduction, especially on eggs production, that is very low in geese. For the egg production, the most important point is the lighting conditions. When exposed to natural day length, the laying period of geese is seasonal and short so that the gosling production is restricting to the spring season. An artificial control of the lighting conditions can be done in closed buildings in order to extend gosling production all over the year or to increase the laying duration. Nevertheless, if it is possible to have a second reproductive period, it is quite difficult. The management of reproductive geese is the same as for geese kept for production. Nevertheless, sometimes reproductive geese need a higher feed restriction to ensure that they do not put on excess weight. The same management and feeding recommendations are applied to all types of geese production, with very little variations. Brooding, for geese is considered to be the first three weeks after hatching. During this period, the most important point is to ensure that the temperature is sufficient for the goslings. Litter used for goslings can be straw, wood shavings, or other, as long as the litter is dry and clean. As in ducks, it is recommended that the water source is located on slatted floors. After the brooding period geese can be kept under either intensive confinement conditions, extensive range-type conditions or a mixture of the two. Geese may be kept on free range or in pens with slatted floors or on straw bedding. When the geese are kept in pens, the group size is about geese and the stocking density rate is about 0.33 to 0.50 m² per bird. Geese grown in intensive conditions are mainly raised on deep litter. With the deep litter system, the drinkers should be located on a wire or slatted area so that spilled water does not wet the litter. One practice is to have one third of the floor space elevated with wire mesh or wooden or plastic slats to accommodate the drinkers. The type of feed generally fed during the growing period is a pelleted waterfowl growing ration ranging from percent crude protein with a metabolizable energy level of kcal ME/kg Main a-specific management procedures in Europe Foie gras production Fatty liver production is the process of force-feeding geese, which are normally between 9-25 weeks of age, for a period of days. 166

167 Because of the specialized and intensive nature of fatty liver production, the production units are generally small in size and usually not more than geese are force-fed in a flock at any one time. The geese are generally housed in pens or in collective cages. In pens, they are kept either on slatted floor or wire at 0.3 to 0.5 m 2 per bird, or on litter at 0.5 to 0.75 m 2 per bird. The geese must not have access to a run or range during the force-feeding period. They are even usually kept in semi dark buildings during this period. As is the case for ducks, corn is the nutrient of choice for the force-feeding period for geese. The preferred feed is maize that has been cooked briefly in water. The geese may be handled up to six times a day, but it depends of the duration. In intensive Hungarian systems, birds can be force fed up to six times and the total process is 8-10 days (fig. 10.1). Three meals a day requires about three weeks of duration. In France an average and modern process is now 4 meals a day during days. A method of force-feeding uses an uncooked mixture of 35 percent ground corn, 30 percent whole grain corn and 35 percent water which is fed using recently designed equipment (fig. 10.2). With this method it is recommended that the geese are force-fed four times (twice a day on two occasions as described above) for days. A quiet, non-aggressive strain is essential, and the Grey Landaises and Toulouse breeds are preferred in France because they are the one which are the most efficient for foie gras production. Research trials have not revealed any signs of aversion in geese. Figure 10.1: Force feeding of geese in hungary (photo: INRA) 167

168 Figure 10.2: Force feeding of geese with modern equipment in France (photo: INRA) Deplumation Feathers can be obtained from carcasses or live animals. Feathers from live animals are considered to be of better quality. Plucking is a traditional activity in Hungary, and it is based on the natural moulting character of the water birds. During their life, geese are plucked at 6-7 weeks intervals, when the geese start to moult. Commercially produced birds that are to be fattened are plucked alive either once or twice (according to the age of slaughter). The down and feathers are also removed when the birds are slaughtered for meat consumption. Before deplumation, the birds are kept under shelter to keep them dry, and they are transferred to a closed shed or vehicle that contains the feathers as they are removed. Following deplumation, the geese are transferred to a dry area that is protected from wind and rain Production and geographical distribution While china is clearly the dominant duck-producing country in the world, its role in goose meat output is even more pronounced. Ninety-four per cent of the 2.5 million tons of goose meat consumed annually worldwide is produced in China from many different breeds, 168

169 followed by the Ukraine, Egypt and Hungary. Hungary, with annual goose meat production of 48,000 tons, account for about 70% of the European production. The international marketing of goose Foie Gras is mainly concentrated in Hungary and France which represent three-quarters of both the world production and consumption (Buckland & Guy, 2002). In fact, Hungary has a quasi monopoly on goose foie gras with 60% of the world production (1600 tons). In 2007, the French production was about 470 tons. After China, Hungary is the largest producer of down and feathers Breeds In Europe, northern Africa, and western Asia, the original domesticated geese are derived from the Greylag Goose Anser anser. The most common commercial breeds are the White Emben (10-15 kg), grey Toulouse, the African and the small White and Brown Chinese geese weighting only 4.5 to 5.5 kg. Domesticated geese are farmed for their meat, feathers and down and to produce foie gras. Feathers are an important co-product in geese breeders flocks, where they are plucked alive and in the goose meat and foie gras industries. Within Europe, deplumation (live plucking) is practiced in especially in Hungary and sometimes in Poland, France and Germany. But in these last countries it is more and more rare due to the labour cost. Geese do not normally exhibit pecking or cannibalism Published literature and information on the main critical points for animal welfare The welfare issues in geese production include: - Stress associated with force-feeding - Stress associated with deplumation - Disease. 169

170 11. Literature Agreste Conjoncture Vers une stabilisation de la production française de foie gras en Agreste Synthèses Aviculture. 70, 1-4. Alvarez, L., Gutiérrez, J., A first description of the physiological and behavioural responses to disbudding in goat kids. Animal welfare, 19: Anderson K. E., D.R. Jones, G.S. Davis & P.K. Jenkins, Effects of genetic selection on behavioral profiles of single comb white leghorn hens through two production cycles. Poultr. Sci. 86 (9): Aumaitre, A., Le Dividich, J., Improvement of piglet survival rate in relation to farrowing systems and conditions. Annales de recherché vétérinaire, 15: Baldock, N. M., Sibly,.M., Effects of handling and transportation on the heart rate and behaviour of sheep. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 28: Barnett, J.L., Hemsworth, P.H., Cronin, G.M., Jongman, E.C., Hutson, G.D., A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Australian journal of agricultural research, 52: Blokhuis, H.J. and J.W. van der Haar, (1992). Effects of pecking incentives during rearing on feather pecking of laying hens. Br Poult Sci Mar;33(1): BML, Bundeseinheitliche Eckwerte für eine freiwillige Vereinbarung zur Haltung von Jungmasthühnern (Broiler, Masthähnchen) und Mastputen. Broom, D.M., Animal welfare defined in terms of attempts to cope with the environment. Acta agriculturae scandinavica. Section A. Animal science, 27: Brouns F., Edwards S.A., English P.R., Influence of fibrous feed ingredients on voluntary intake of dry sows. Animal feed science and technology, 54: Buckland, R., & Guy, G. (2002). Goose Production. FAO Agriculture Department. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper no 154: 151 pg Caja, G., Rancourt, M., Current situation and prospects of dairy sheep in Spain. Options Mediterranean, Serie B N39: Cherry P and Morris T Domestic duck production. Science and practice. CABI Classen, H.L., Riddell, C., Robinson, F.E., Shand, P.J., McCurdy, A.R Effect of lighting treatment on the productivity, health, behaviour and sexual maturity of heavy male turkeys. British Poultry Science 35: Cooper JJ, McAffee L, and Skinn H Behavioural responses of domestic ducks to nipple drinkers, bell drinkers and water troughs. British Poultry Science. 43,

171 Coppinger, T. R., Minton, J.E., Reddy, P.G., Blecha, F., Repeated restraint and isolation stress in lambs increases pituitary-adrenal secretion and reduces cell-mediated immunity. J. Anim. Sci., 69: Council of Europe. 1999a. Recommendation concerning domestic ducks (Anas Platyrhynchos) Standing Committee Of The European Convention For The Protection Of Animals Kept For Farming Purposes (T-AP), adopted on 22 June Council of Europe. 1999b. Recommendation concerning Muscovy ducks (Cairina Moschata) and hybrids of Muscovy and domestic ducks (Anas Platyrhynchos) Standing Committee Of The European Convention For The Protection Of Animals Kept For Farming Purposes (T-AP), adopted on 22 June %20E% asp#TopOfPage Council of Europe. (1999). Recommendation concerning domestic geese (Anser Anser F. Domesticus, Anser Cygnoides F. Domesticus) and their crossbreeds. Council Directive 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007 laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production (Text with EEA relevance). Official Journal of the European Union L 182, , p Cronin, G.M., Simpson, G.J., Hemsworth, P.H., The effects of the gestation and farrowing environments on sow and piglet behaviour and piglet survival and growth in early lactatin. Applied animal behaviour science, 46: Dayen M and Fielder HH Intensive raising of Muscovy ducks. Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift. 106, Decuypere, E., Hocking, P.M., Tona, K., Onagbesan, O., Bruggeman, V., Jones, E.k.m., Cassy, S., Rideau, N., Metayer, S., Jego, Y., Putterflam, J., Tesseraud, S., Collin, A., Duclos, M., Trevidy, J.J. & Williams, J., Broiler breeder paradox: a project report. World s Poultry Science Journal, 62: De Jong, I.C., Enting, H., van Voorst, A. & Blokhuis, H.J., Do low-density diets improve broiler breeder welfare during rearing and laying? Poultry Science 84: De Rancourt, M., Fois, N., Lavín, M.P., Tchakérian, E., Vallerand, F., Mediterranean sheep and goats production: an uncertain future. Small ruminant research, 62: Dýrmundsson, O.R., Sustainability of sheep and goat production in North European countries from the Arctic to the Alps. 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production. Bled, Slovenia, 5-9 September

172 EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing PB L 303 van , blz Edwards,D.S., Johnston, A.M., Welfare implications of sheep ear tags. Veterinary Record, 144: EFSA, The Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers). Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare. Adopted 21 March SANCO.B.3/AH/R15/ pages. EFSA, Scientific report on the risks associated with tail biting in pigs and possible means to reduce the need for tail docking considering the different housing and husbandry systems. The EFSA Journal, 611: EFSA, 2005a. The welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effets of different space allowances and floor types. The EFSA Journal, 268: EFSA, 2005b. The welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens (EFSA-Q ). The EFSA Journal (2005) 197, EFSA, 2007a. Scientific report on animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry. The EFSA Journal, 564: EFSA, 2007b. Scientific report on animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets. The EFSA Journal, 572: EFSA, Draft version of Scientific Report to the Panel on AHAW on the influence of genetic parameters on the welfare and resistance to stress of commercial broilers; and welfare aspects of management and housing of grand-parent and parent stocks raised and kept for breeding purposes. The EFSA Journal (200x) xxx, Ekkel, E.D., Van Doorn, C.E.A., Hessing, M.J.C., Tielen, M.J.M., The specific stressfree housing system has positive effects on productivity, health, and welfare of pigs. Journal of animal science, 73: EU, Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities ( ) L 203: FAO database: FAWC, Report on the Welfare of Turkeys. Report Fiks - van Niekerk, T.G.C.M., M.A.W. Ruis, H. Gunnink and B.F.J. Reuvekamp, 2009a. Effect of human-animal contact with layer pullets on fearfulness and technical results in the rearing and laying periods. Proceedings 8th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare, Cervia, Italy, Book of Abstracts:

173 Fiks - van Niekerk, T.G.C.M., I.C.d. Jong, T. Veldkamp, M.M.v. Krimpem and R.A.v. Emous, 2009b. Ingrepen bij pluimvee. Update 'literatuurstudie ingrepen bij pluimvee, 2006'. Report Animal Sciences Group, no. 255: 46 pages. (Update literature study mutilations in poultry" in Dutch) Geers, R., DellaERT, b., Goedseels, V., Hoogerbrugge, A., Vranken, E., Maes, F., Berkmans, D., An assessment of optimal air temperatures in pig houses by the quantification of behavioural and health-related problems. Animal production, 48: Gentry, J.G., McGlone, J.J., Blanton, Jr. J.R., Miller, M.F., 2002a. Alternative housing systems for pigs: influences on growth, composition, and porl quality. Journal of animal science, 80: Gonyou, H.W., Group housing: alternative systems, alternative management. Advances in pork production, 14: Graham, M.J., Kent, J.E., Molony,V., Effects of four analgesic treatments on the behavioural and cortisol responses of 3-week-old lambs to tail docking. The Veterinary Journal, 153: Gravas, L., Behavioural and physical effects of flooring on piglets and sows. Applied animal ethology, 5: Gregory, NG. (2007).Poultry and Rabbits. Animal welfare and meat production. 2nd edition, CABI, pp Guémené D and Guy G The past, present and future of force-feeding and «foie-gras» production. World s Poultry Science Journal. 60, Guémené D, Guy G, Noirault J, et al Rearing conditions during the force-feeding period in male ducks and their impact upon stress and welfare. Animal Research. 55, Gunnarsson, S., Keeling, L.J. and Svedberg, J. (1999). Effect of rearing factors on the prevalence of floor eggs, cloacal cannibalism and feather pecking in commercial flocks of loose housed laying hens. British Poultry Science 40: Hargreaves, A. L., Hutson, G.D., An evaluation of the contribution of isolation, upending and wool removal to the stress response to shearing. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 26: Havenstein, G.B., Ferket, P.R., Grimes, J.L. Qureshi, M.A., Nestor, K.E Comparison of the performance of versus 2003-type turkeys when fed representative 1966 and 2003 turkey diets: Growth rate, livability, and feed conversion. Poultry Science 86: Held, S., Mendl, M., Behaviour of the young weaner. In Varley M.A., Wiseman J. (eds.), The weaner pig: nutrition and management. Wallingford (UK), CAB Int.,

174 Hemsworth, P.H., Barnett, J.L., Hansen, C., Gonyou, H.W., 1986b. The influence of early contact with humans on subsequent behavioural response of pigs to humans. Applied animal behaviour science, 15: Henderson, S.N., Barton, J.T., Wolfenden, A.d., Higgins, S.E., Higgins, J.P., Kuenzel, W.J., Lester, C.A., Tellez, G., & Hargis, B.M., Comparison of beak-trimming methods on early broiler breeder performance. Poultry Science 88: Hendriks, H.J.M., van de Weerdhof, A.M., Dutch notes on BAT for pig and poultry intensive livestock farming, August (1999). Ministry of agriculture, nature management and fisheries. National reference centre agriculture. The Netherlands, pp Hester, P.Y., Sutton, A.L., Elkin, R.G Effect of light intensity, litter source and litter management on the incidence of leg abnormalities and performance of male turkeys. Poultry Science 66: Hocking, P.M., Feed restriction. In Hocking, P.M. (ed): Biology of breeding poultry. CABI publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp Hosie, B.D., Carruthers, J., Sheppard, B.W., Bloodless castration of lambs: results of a questionnaire. British Veterinary Journal, 152 : Hughes, B.O., Grigor, P.N Behavioural time-budgets and beak related behaviour in floor-housed turkeys. Animal Welfare 5: Jensen, K.H., Hansen, S.W., Pedersen, L.J., The effect of long-term stress on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical xis and the role of the stressor. Acta agriculturae scandinavica, 27: Kanitz, E., Tuchscherer, M., Tuchscherer, A., Stabenow, B., Neuroendocrine and immune responses to acute endotoxemia in suckling and weaned piglets. Biology of the neonate, 81: Kanitz, E., Tuchscherer, M., Puppe, B., Tuchscherer, A., Consequences of repeated early isolation in domestic piglets (Sus scrofa) on their behavioural, neuroendocrine, and immunological responses. Brain, behavior, and Immunity, 18: Kent, J.E., Molony, V., Jackson, R.E., Hosie, B.D., Chronic inflammatory responses of lambs to rubber ring castration: are there any effects of age or size of lamb at treatment?pages in A.J.F.Russel, C.A.Morgan, C.J.Savory, M.C.Appleby, T.L.J.Lawrence, eds. Farm animal welfare-who writes the rules? 23 ed. British Society of Animal Science. Kent, J.E., Molony, V., Graham, M.J , Comparison of methods for the reduction of acute pain produced by rubber ring castration or tail docking of week-old lambs. The Veterinary Journal, 155: Kent, J.E., Molony, V., Robertson, I.S., Behaviour of lambs post castration and tail docking: effect of age and method. In: Applied Animal Behaviour: Past, Present and 174

175 Future. Proc. Soc. Vet. Ethol., Edinburgh Univ. Fed. Anim. Welfare, Potters Bar, Great Britain. Kilgour, R., de Langen, H., Stress in sheep resulting from management practices. Proc. N. Z. Soc. Anim. Prod. 30: Kilgour, R.J., Waterhouse, T., Dwyer, C.M., Ivanov, I.D Farming systems for sheep production and their effect on welfare. In: The welfare of sheep. Pp C. Dwyer (ed.) Springer Science. Konyali, A., Tölü, C., Das, G., Savas, T., Factors affecting placental traïts and relationships of placental traïts with neonatal behaviour in goat. Animal reproduction science, 97: Lang C, Lang M, Witkos M et al. 2007a. Foie gras : the two faces of Janus. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association. 230 (11), Lang C, Witkos M, Uttaburanont M et al. 2007b. Debate over foie gras continues. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association. 231 (2), Laughlin, K.F., Breeder management: how did we get there? In Hocking, P.M. (ed): Biology of breeding poultry. CABI publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp LayWel, Description of housing systems for Laying hens. In: Laywel Project "Welfare implications of changes in production systems for laying hens" (SSPE-CT ). Lewis, P.D., Perry, G.C., Sherwin, C.M Effect of photoperiod and light intensity on the performance of intact male turkeys. Animal Science 66: Lewis, P.D., Perry G. C., Sherwin C. M., Moinard, C Effect of Ultraviolet Radiation on the Performance of Intact Male Turkeys. Poultry Science 79: Mason, S.P., Jarvis, S., Lawrence, A.B., Individual differences in responses of piglets to weaning at different ages. Applied animal behaviour science, 80: McCowan, B., J. Schrader, A.M. DiLorenzo, C. Cardona & D. Klingborg, Effects of induced molting on the well-being of egg-laying hens. Journ. of Appl. Welfare Sci. 9(1):9-13. McGlone, J.J., Finishing pigs in less intensive production systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd symposium on swine raised outdoors. Concordia, Brazil, Merlot, E., Meunier-Salaün, M.C., Prunier, A., Behavioural, endocrine and immune consequences of mixing in weaned piglets. Applied animal behaviour science, 85: Miranda-de la Lama, G.C., Mattiello, S., Te importance of social behaviour for goat welfare in livestock farming. Small ruminant research (in press). 175

176 Morishita, TY. (2004). Waterfowl husbandry for the avian health professional. Seminars in Avian and Exotic Pet Medicine, Vol 13, N 4 (October), pp Mouttotou, N., Hatchell, F.M., Green, L.E., The prevalence and risk factors associated with forelimb skin abrasions and sole bruising in preweaning piglets. Preventive veterinary medicine, 39: Newberry, R.C., Cannibalism. In: Welfare of the Laying Hen. Ed. by G.C. Perry, CABI Publishing, Wallingford UK, pp Noonan, G.J., Rand, J.S., Priest, J., Ainscow, J., Blackshaw, J.K., Behavioural observations of piglets undergoing tail docking, teeth clipping and ear notching. Applied animal behaviour science, 39: Pajor, E.A., Weary, D.M., Fraser, D., Kramer, D.L., Alternative housing for sows and litters. 1. Effects of sow-controlled housing on responses to weaning. Applied animal behaviour science, 65: Pajor, E. A., Weary, D.M., Caceres, C., Fraser, D., Kramer, D. L., Alternative housing for sows and litters. 3. Effects of pigletdiet quality and sow-controlled housing on performance and behaviour. Applied animal behaviour science, 76: PIGCAS, Attitudes, practices and state of the art regarding piglet castration in Europe. Deliverable D2.4. Report on the practice of castration. Pol, F., Courboulay, V., Cotte, J.P., Martrenchar, A., Hay, M., Mormède, P., Urinary cortisol as an additional tool to assess the welfare of pregnant sows in two types of housing. Veterinary research, 33: PPE Verordening welzijnsnormen vleeskalkoenen. Prunier, A., Hay, M., Servière, J., Evaluation et prevention de la douleur induite par les interventions de convenace chez le porcelet. Journées de la recherche porcine en France 34: Puppe, B., Tuchscherer, A., The development of suckling frequency in pigs from birth to weaning of their piglets. A sociobiological approach. Animal science, 71: Puppe, B., Tuchscherer, M., Tuchscherer, A., The effect of housing conditions and social environment immediately after weaning on the agonistic behaviour, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, and plasma glucose level in pigs. Livestock production science, 48: Puppe, B., Schön, P.C., Tuchscherer, A., Manteuffel, G., Castration-induced vocalization in domestic piglets, Sus scrofa: complex and specific alterations of the vocal quality. Applied animal behaviour science, (95): Raud H and Faure, JM Welfare of ducks in intensive units. Revue sicentifique et technique (International office of Epizootics). 13,

177 Rochard O, Lubac S, Aliner A et al., Traitement du bec par la technique infra rouge ou l épointage aux ciseaux : quelles conséquences? 8ème Journées de la Recherche sur les Palmipèdes à Foie Gras ; Arcachon Rodenburg TB, Bracke MBM, Berk J, et al Welfare of ducks in European duck husbandry systems. Worlds Poultry Science Journal. 61 (4), Rhodes, R. C. III, Nippo, M.M., Morgan, T.J., Gross, W.A., Tail docking of lambs: evidence for both a long-term and short-term stress response. J. Anim. Sci 67 (Suppl. 1): 99 (Abstr.). Roger, P.A., 2008.The impact of disease and disease prevention on welfare in sheep. In: The welfare of sheep. Pp C. Dwyer (ed.) Springer Science. RSPCA RSPCA Welfare standards for turkeys. Rushen, J., 1986a. Aversion of sheep to electro-immobilization and physical restraint. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 15: Rushen, J., 1986b. Aversion of sheep to handling treatments; paired-choice studies. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 16: Rushen, J., Congdon, P., Relative aversion of sheep to simulated shearing with and without electro-immobilization. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 26: Rushen, J., Lawrence, A.B., Terlouw, E.M.C., The motivational basis of stereotypies. In Lawrence A.B., Rushen J. (eds.), Stereotypic Animal Behaviour: Fundamentals and applications to welfare. Wallingford (UK), CAB Int., Scott, P.R., Dun, K., Penny, C.D., Strachan, W.D., Keeling, N., Field assessment of lamb behavior after xylazine hydrochloride epidural injection for castration using rubber rings. Agri-Practice 17:19. Signoret, J.P., Ramonet, Y., Vieuille-Thomas, C., L élevage en plein-air des truies gestantes : problèmes posés par les relations sociales. Journées de la recherche porcine en France, 27: Simon, D.L., Buchenauer, D., Genetic diversity of European livestock breeds. EAAP Publication No. 66, Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, 579p. Spoolder, H.A.M., Burbidge, J.A., Edwards, S.A., Simmins, P.H., Lawerence, A.B., Provision of straw as a foraging substrate reduces the development of excessive chain and bar manipulation in food restricted sows. Applied animal behaviour science, 43: SVC, The welfare of intensively kept pigs. Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee. Directorate General XXIV of the European Commission. Adopted 30th September Doc XXIV/ScVc/0005/97. Scientific Veterinary Committee, Animal Welfare Section, Brussels, Belgium. 177

178 Terlouw, E.M.C., Lawrence, A.B., Illius, A.W., Influences of feeding level and physical restriction on development of stereotypies in sows. Animal behavior, 42: Terlouw, E.M.C., Porcher, J., Repeated handling of pigs during rearing. I. Refusal of contact by the handler and reactivity to familiar and unfamiliar humans. Journal of animal science, (83): Thornton, P.D., Waterman-Pearson, A.E., Quantification of the pain and distress responses to castration in young lambs. Research in Veterinary Science. Valdmanis, L., Menzies, P., Millman, S., A survey of dehorning practices and pain management in goats. In: Galindo F and Alvarez L (eds) 41st Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology. 30 July-3 August 2007, Mérida, México. Veldkamp, T., Kiezebrink, M.C Meer beschadigingen bij ongekapte kalkoenen: lagere lichtsterkte nodig om pikkerij te beperken. Pluimveehouderij 27 (1997)39: Veldkamp, T., Kiezebrink, M.C. 1998a. Meer beschadigingen bij lichtschema: lichtschema versus continu licht. Pluimveehouderij 28 (1998)22: Veldkamp, T., Kiezebrink, M.C. 1998b. Speeltjes weerhouden kalkoenen niet van pikkerij: Onacceptabel veel beschadigingen en hoge uitval. Pluimveehouderij 28 (1998) 30 oktober: Veldkamp, T. 1998a. Onderzoeken naar management en huisvesting van onbehandelde vleeskalkoenen. PP-Uitgave No. 75. Veldkamp, T. 1998b. Speelobjecten: geen invloed op beschadigingen bij ongekapte kalkoenen. Praktijkonderzoek, september Veldkamp, T Schuurmateriaal in de voerpan geen effect op beschadigingen en uitval bij niet gesnavelkapte kalkoenen. Praktijkonderzoek, april Veldkamp, T., Kiezebrink, M.C Invloed van verrijking leefomgeving op pikkerij bij vleeskalkoenen met onbehandelde snavels. Praktijkonderzoek, maart Veldkamp, T., Kiezebrink, M.C Ander type verlichting geen oplossing voor pikkerij bij onbehandelde kalkoenen. Praktijkonderzoek, oktober Veldkamp, T., Kiezebrink, M.C Proef met kalkoenen met overdekte uitloop. Gunstige eerste indruk ondanks tegenslag. Pluimveehouderij (35) 23 juli 2005: Weber, R., Keil, N.M., Fehr, M., Horat, R., Piglet mortality on farms using farrowing systems with or without crates. Anim. Welfare, 16, Webster, Behavior of White Leghorn Laying hens after withdrawal of feed. Poultry Science 79:

179 Zeltner, E. & H. Hirt, Ethological investigation on moulting laying hens in organic farming. in: Proceedings 7th European symposium on Poultry Welfare, June 2005, Lublin, Poland. Institute of Genetics and Animal Breeding, Jastrzçbiec, Poland. Animal science Papers and Reports vol. 23(2005) suppl. 1:

180 12. Glossary / Abbreviations Ascaridia Round worms that live in the intestines of animals and can affect their health if they grow in large quantities Beak trimming The removal of the tip of the beak of birds to prevent injurious pecking. The measue is carried out on laying hens, broiler breeders, turkeys, ducks Beef cattle cattle kept for production of meat Boar male pig after puberty, intended for breeding. Bovine animal of the subfamily Bovinae, a diverse group of ten genera of medium to large sized ungulates, including domestic cattle, the bison, the African buffalo, the water buffalo, the yak, and the four-horned and spiral-horned antelopes Broiler A type of chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) bred for meat production Broiler breeder Birds of the parent (P) or grandparent (GP) generation in the system of producing broilers, i.e. chickens kept for meat production. Broiler breeders are sometimes also referred to as multipliers. Bull an adult male animal of cattle, usually over 24 months of age Bullock the same as steer Calf an young animal of cattle, usually below 6 months of age or at least until weaning Cattle domesticated animals of the species Bos primigenius (subspecies Bos primigenius taurus, Bos primigenius indicus and Bos primigenius primigenius) Closed herd herd to which all or nearly all replacements are raised on-farm Collective nest Nest where several hens can lay their eggs simultaneously. Sometimes the expression colony nest is also used for these types of nests. Conventional cages Cages for laying hens that do not contain furnishment like perches, nestboxes or litter. Conventional cages is a different term for battery cages or unmodified cages Cow an adult female animal of cattle after first calving Cubicle stall for lying in loose housing (compare feeding cubicle) Culling The deliberate humane killing of birds being non- or low-producing, excess in number in relation to the production need, or sick or injured. Dairy cattle cattle kept for production of milk Declawing Removal of the dew (and sometimes also pivot) claw from the feet of breeder males to prevent damage to females during natural mating. 180

181 Deep pack a permanent bed of straw (in rare cases, other litter material) meant as lying place for housed cattle (new litter is added on top daily and the entire pack is removed after several months); the pack can be placed on a 8-10% sloped concrete floor to make it slide gradually (new litter is added on top and the lowest parts are remover daily) Despurring Removal of the spur bud on the back of the male chick s leg Disbudding the removal of the germinal tissue of the horn in goat kids, to prevent horn development in adults. Dubbing Removal of all, or part, of the male comb. Dry pregnant sow sow between weaning her piglets and the perinatal period. Ducklings young ducks Environment All conditions that affect an animal s performance that are not genetic Ewe adult female sheep Farrowing crate small metal cage in which pregnant sows are kept usually from a week before giving birth until their piglets are weaned. Farrowing sow female pig between the perinatal period and the weaning of the piglets. Feeding cubicle stall for lying and eating in loose housing FL-light Fluorescent light Flock a group of sheep or laying hens. Flying herd herd to which all replacements are purchased as pregnant heifers, freshly calved heifers, or even milking cows Fodder feed, usually restricted to feed harvested and given to the animals (as opposed to grazed) Foie gras human food product made of the liver of a duck or goose that has been specially fattened, usually by forced feeding corn Forage green plant material (leaves and stems) eaten by grazing livestock, either grazed or harvested, e.g. grass, hay, silage Free range area outside the housing system provided to enable the animals to stay in the open air. Free-stall same as cubicle Genotype The actual genetic make-up of an individual as determined by its genes;, may refer to a particular trait or the genome as a whole. May also refer to a specific hybrid. 181

182 Gilt female pig after puberty and before farrowing. Goat a member of the bovidae family and closely related to the sheep, both are in the goatantelope subfamily caprinae. The domestic goat (capra aegagrus hircus) is a subspecies of goat domesticated from the wild goat of southwest asia and eastern europe. Grand-parent stock Broiler breeders two generations above the production (broiler) level. Offspring of Great Grandparent stock (GGP), which are the offspring of pedigree stock. Heifer a female animal of cattle before first calving Heritability Is the ration of the genetic over phenotypic variance and reflects the proportion of a measured or observed trait that is transmitted to the offspring by genes that act in an additive manner.. Therefore, the higher the heritability, the more likely the individual s actual performance will be passed to offspring and response due to selection for that trait will be faster. Hybrid In this report: Progeny produced by crossing two or more lines or breeds. Also called Linecross (Line-breeding). In biology in general the term hybrid is, however, mostly used to describe the offspring of two individuals of different species. Kid young goat Lamb young sheep Layer, laying hen A type of chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) bred for efficient egg production Leucosis A malignant disease of the lymphatic system in chickens, caused by a virus. Livestock animals kept in an agricultural setting for production purposes Long-stall a tie-stall where animals are locked out by a gate from the feeding platform when not fed Loose housing the animals are kept indoors in a cubicle or strawyard system Mule ducks sterile progeny from a cross of Pekin duck females (Anas platyrynchos) with Muscovy males (Cairina moschata) Muscovy ducks large duck (Cairina moschata) used for meat production. Mutilation The removal or damaging of a part or parts of the body, not being the horny dead body tissue and feathers Ox an adult castrated male animal of cattle kept for draft purposes Parent stock Broiler breeders one generation above the production (broiler) level. Offspring of Grandparent stock (GP). 182

183 Peak production The period in time when production (in this case the number of fertile eggs produced) is at its maximum. Pekin duck (Anas platyrhynchos), is a breed of domesticated duck used primarily for egg and meat production. Piglet pig from birth to weaning. Ram intact male Rearing Growing an animal from birth untill (almost) fullgrown Rearing pig pig from 10 weeks to slaughter or service. Roughage harvested feed containing large amounts of dietary fibre, including forage, e.g. straw, grass, hay or silage Selection The process of deciding which animals will be parents of the next generation based on some pre-determined criterion Sheep quadrupedal, ruminant mammals typically kept as livestock. Sheep are members of the order Artiodactyla, the even-toed ungulates. Although the name "sheep" applies to many species, in everyday usage it almost always refers to Ovis aries. Sheep are most likely descended from the wild mouflon of Europe and Asia. Short-stall a tie-stall with access to feeding platform all 24 hours (area over feeding platform used as head space also while lying and when getting up) Slatted floor wooden or metal floors with narrow gaps between slats to permit discharge of feces and urine to the external environment. Sow female pig after the first farrowing. Spiking A procedure aiming at sustaining good fertility levels in broiler breeder flocks. Att approx. 40 weeks of age inactive males in poor condition are removed and replaced by younger mature males. The actual effect of this practice has been questioned. Spot-brooding Young chicks are reared in small enclosures under a heat source during the first days-week of life, instead of immediately given access to the entire area of the rearing house. Stall a small enclosure for an animal Stanchion type of restraining device for tied cattle (stanchion barn used synonymous to tie-stall barn) Steer an adult castrated male animal of cattle, usually over 24 months of age Straw-yard usually a deep pack (literally, a large straw-littered pen) 183

184 Sudden death syndrome Birds (broiler chickens) that die suddenly with no other obvious pathology. The cause is probably metabolic. It can be induced by lactic acidosis and about 70% of birds affected are males. Tie-stall a stall for permanent tethering of animals, with access to feed, water and bedding Toe clipping Removal of a specific toe at the first knuckle, for identification purposes. Total mixed ration all feedstuffs (except water) are mixed to one feed mix before given to the animals Transhumance seasonal movement of people with their livestock over relatively short distances, typically to higher pastures in summer and to lower valleys in winter, practised in e.g. Bulgaria, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Republic of Macedonia, Romania, Scandinavia, Scotland, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey Veal meat from calves Weaner pig from weaning to the age of 10 weeks or weaned calf Wether castrated male Yearling young animal of cattle, usually 1-2 years of age Young bull an intact male animal of cattle, usually 6-24 months of age Young steer a castrated male animal of cattle, usually 6-24 months of age 184

185 TECHNICAL REPORT submitted to EFSA Animal welfare risk assessment guidelines on housing and management (EFSA Housing Risk) 24 Workpackage 2 (WP2) - Hazard identification and characterisation Prepared by Wageningen UR Livestock Research (formerly known as ASG Veehouderij bv) 24 (Question No EFSA-Q ). Accepted for Publication on 15 December

186 Table of Contents Background Terms of reference Acknowledgements Institutes involved Introduction Definitions of hazards and consequences Welfare Quality principles and criteria for welfare Methodology for composing hazard lists Criteria to Hazard - method Hazard to Criteria -method General list of hazards Criteria to Hazard -method Objective Method Results and discussion Conclusions Hazard to Criteria -method Objective Method Results and discussion Conclusion General list of hazards Objective Method Results and discussion Conclusions References Annex 1a: Hazard list pregnant sows in electronic feeding (ESF) Annex 1b: Hazard list pregnant sows in free access stalls Annex 2a: Hazard list growing pigs in fully slatted floors Annex 2b: Hazard list growing pigs in deep litter Annex 3: Hazard list Dairy Cattle Annex 4: General list of Hazards Annex 5: Hazard list Broiler breeders Annex 6: Hazard list Laying hens Annex 7: Hazard list Broilers Annex 8: Hazard list Turkeys Annex 9: Hazard list Geese Annex 10: Hazard list Ducks Annex 11: Hazard list meat sheep in extensive conditions Annex 12: Hazard list Goats in semi-intensive systems

187 Background One of the tasks of the European Food Safety Authority is to promote and coordinate the development of harmonised risk assessment (RA) methodologies in the fields of food and feed safety, nutrition, plant health, plant protection, animal health and animal welfare. Current farming systems found in Europe were developed when there was a need for large quantities of inexpensive food after the wartime shortage and were designed before animal welfare became a major concern. For instance, one of the main findings given by the Eurobarometer survey 25 (EC, 2005) is that over 50% of consumers from across the EU25 are concerned that levels of farm animal welfare are not adequate. To promote high animal welfare standards in current farming systems in relation to housing and management, a clear knowledge of the main risks for poor animal welfare is required. Good animal welfare risk assessment can only be carried out if the risk for poor animal welfare are identified and quantified. Due to the multidimensional nature of animal welfare, housing and management systems shall be compared in view of different welfare indicators. For each welfare indicator one or more hazards can be identified that can negatively influence the welfare of the animals. Composing a list of hazards requires a methodological way of working, that results in a complete list and facilitates a good risk assessment. Terms of reference A self mandate was launched by EFSA in September 2007 (EFSA-Q ) to develop the Risk Assessment Guidelines for Animal Welfare, where three main animal welfare issues were identified, namely: Stunning and Killing, Transport, Housing and Management. A harmonised definition of Animal Welfare, including the relationship with Animal Disease, should be also addressed in the framework of this self mandate. The main animal welfare issues (Stunning and Killing, Transport, Housing and Management) are dealt with separately. The deliverables from the different projects will be assembled and evaluated in order to produce the final Risk Assessment Guidelines on Animal Welfare, under the EFSA self mandate framework. In relation to the housing and management of animals bred or kept for production, and in addition to the Council Directive 98/58/EC 26 of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, specific legislation exists laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves 27, pigs 28 and laying hens 29, improving the enforcement of high animal welfare standards in the European Union. The EFSA AHAW Panel has also issued several Scientific Opinions related to the risks of poor welfare in intensive calf farming systems 30, welfare of weaners and rearing pigs:

188 effects of different space allowances and floor types 31, animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry 32, animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets 33, and welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens 34. Acknowledgements This contract/grant was awarded by EFSA to: Contractor/Beneficiary: Co-beneficiaries: ASG Veehouderij b.v. (co-ordinator) Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA) Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) Contract/grant title: Contract/grant number: Project to develop Animal Risk Assessment Guidelines on housing and Management EFSA/AHAW/2009/01 Institutes involved PARTNERS ASG Veehouderij bv (ASG) - Netherlands - (co-ordinator) Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) - Sweden Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA) - Spain Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) - Germany SUBCONTRACTORS Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) - Spain Vet School of Lyon (VSL) - France Institute of Veterinary Biomedicine (IVB) - Macedonia Royal Veterinary College (RVC) - UK

189 13. INTRODUCTION Hazard identification has so far constituted the first step to carry out a risk assessment. For the description of the potential hazards of housing and management for animal welfare, various methodologies were evaluated. One of the aims was to use the 12 criteria for welfare that were developed in the Welfare Quality project as a structure for the listing of the potential hazards. When working on the issues, it appeared that it sometimes is difficult to identify what are hazards, what are specifications of hazards and what are consequences of hazards. Therefore in this chapter some definitions are provided to clarify the issues Definitions of hazards and consequences In the context of Animal Welfare Risk Assessment there are several terms used that can be understood in various ways and thus need clarification. In this project the following definitions will be used: A hazard is a production factor capable of having an adverse effect on welfare of a given animal population. In describing the hazards one can do this in a more general way (e.g. "insufficient light") or one could specify this more into detail (e.g. "too low light intensity" or light of too short duration ). Other examples of specifications are too few events, too long time between events and too short episodes. In some EFSA reports this has been referred to as exposure to hazards. This leads to two more definitions: A hazard description is a description of the hazard in general terminology that indicates the area of concern (e.g. "light duration"). A hazards specification is a specification of the hazard involved, taking a specific animal population into account and indicating how the hazard can increase the risk of poor welfare for animals of this population (e.g. too low light intensity or "too short light duration"). Several types of specification can be combined in different ways (e.g. too low light intensity or too short light duration or too low light intensity and too short light duration ). Hazards can have one or more adverse effects. Other working groups may have used other terms for this, e.g. consequence (broilers). Consequence is a more neutral term, leaving it open if the effect is positive or negative. Although other EFSA groups have discussed the possibility of hazards having positive effects, in this report hazards will be regarded as only resulting in reduced welfare and thus only having negative effects. Therefore the term adverse effect will be use in this project. An adverse effect is the negative effect of a hazard on the welfare of a given animal population. The extent to which a hazard can have adverse effects varies in magnitude, frequency or likelihood of occurrence. This can be referred to as hazard characterization. 189

190 A hazard characterization indicates the magnitude and frequency or likelihood of occurrence of the adverse effect. The objective of hazard characterization is to review and describe the consequences of the exposure to one or several hazards in terms of magnitude and likelihood of the adverse effect for a given animal population Welfare Quality principles and criteria for welfare Many attempts have been made to define animal welfare. A problem with many definitions is that they add little to the debate on how welfare can be operationalised and assessed. In the 1960 s of the last century a British think tank came up with what is now called the five freedoms. They offer the basic animal needs that have to be fulfilled during all situations under which animals are kept including transport, and provide an opportunity to assess welfare. John Webster listed them in his book on Animal Welfare in The five freedoms are (Webster, 1994): freedom from hunger and thirst - by free access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigour freedom from discomfort - by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a comfortable resting area freedom from pain, injury or disease by prevention and rapid diagnosis and treatment freedom to express normal behaviour by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal s own kind freedom from fear an distress by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering There are a number of different scoring systems which have tried to translate the 5 Freedoms into an instrument to assess welfare. In an integrated effort Welfare Quality combined analyses of consumer/citizen perceptions and attitudes with existing knowledge and expert opinion from animal welfare science, to identify 4 main principles of welfare reflecting the 5 Freedoms. Animals should experience: good housing good feeding good health the ability to express normal behaviour. To make these principles measurable, Welfare Quality listed 12 criteria that cover all the key dimensions of animal welfare. With the Welfare Quality system an overall assessment of welfare an be made. Although more systems are described in the literature, the Welfare Quality system is developed according to the latest ideas on animal welfare and is supported by the majority of the 190

191 European scientists working on animal welfare in farmed animals. The difference between the Welfare Quality approach and other monitoring systems is that it focuses on animal based measures (e.g. directly related to animal body condition, health aspects, injuries, behaviour, etc.) instead of on resource based measures (e.g. size of a cage, feeding space, etc.). In this way it is focussing on the outcome of the interaction between the animal and its environment (housing design and management). As said the Welfare Quality system comprises four welfare principles. Each of these four principles corresponded to several criteria, with an overall total of 12 criteria (Botreau et al., 2007; Table 1). Each criterion represents a separate aspect of animal welfare. The criteria reflect what is meaningful to animals as understood by animal welfare science. The set of criteria considered the following guidelines: 1) exhaustive (containing every important viewpoint), 2) minimal (banning redundant or irrelevant criteria), 3) independent of each other (Botreau et al., 2007). In detail the 12 criteria are: 1. Absence of prolonged hunger (animals should not suffer from prolonged hunger, i.e. they should have a suitable and appropriate diet) 2. Absence of prolonged thirst (animals should not suffer from prolonged thirst, i.e. they should have a sufficient and accessible water supply) 3. Comfort around resting (animals should have comfort when they are resting) 4. Thermal comfort (animals should have thermal comfort, i.e. they should neither be too hot nor too cold) 5. Ease of movement (animals should have enough space to be able to move around freely) 6. Absence of injuries (animals should be free of injuries, e.g. skin damage and locomotory disorders) 7. Absence of disease (animals should be free from disease, i.e. animal unit managers should maintain high standards of hygiene and care) 8. Absence of pain induced by management procedures (animals should not suffer pain induced by inappropriate management, handling, slaughter, or surgical procedures, e.g. castration, dehorning) 9. Expression of social behaviours (animals should be able to express normal, nonharmful, social behaviours, e.g. grooming) 10. Expression of other behaviours (animals should be able to express other normal behaviours, i.e. it should be possible to express species-specific natural behaviours such as foraging) 11. Good human-animal relationship (animals should be handled well in all situations, i.e. handlers should promote good human-animal relationships) 12. Positive emotional state (negative emotions such as fear, distress, frustration or apathy should be avoided whereas positive emotions such as security or contentment should be promoted) The twelve Welfare Quality criteria might not cover all aspects of animal welfare relevant for a risk assessment. The criteria were formulated for the specific purpose of efficient and reliable on-farm assessments of AW status. But AW status and AW risk are different entities 191

192 and are characterised differently. The components or criteria used for one do not necessarily cover all aspects of the other. Earlier EFSA working groups (e.g. EFSA, 2009) have identified e.g. reduced reproductive performance and reduced longevity as important consequences of poor welfare. However, these are not included among the twelve Welfare Quality criteria, as both poor reproduction and longevity are not necessarily detrimental to the welfare of the animal itself. But they can be very strongly related to other criteria on the list, such as absence of prolonged hunger or absence of disease. Thus, some aspects of AW are not only endpoints but also risk factors (or even hazards) of other AW aspects, which are also endpoints. All these aspects must be taken into consideration when identifying hazards and characterising them by describing adverse AW endpoints. Consequently, the WQ criteria appear to some extent useful for hazard characterisation, i.e. when describing negative consequences. Although the criteria are not fully exhaustive, as discussed above, they help to systematise the characterisation. A standardised list for all species and situations is likely to further promote validity and render comparisons between different risk assessments possible. In contrast, hazard identification is facilitated to a limited extent, i.e. the criteria do not really help in completing the list of hazards. Table 1. Principles and criteria of animal welfare as developed in the Welfare Quality project (Botreau et al., 2007). Principles Good feeding Criteria 1. Absence of prolonged hunger 2. Absence of prolonged thirst 3. Comfort around resting Good housing 4. Thermal comfort 5. Ease of locomotion 6. Absence of injuries Good health 7. Absence of disease 8. Absence of other pain 9. Expression of social behaviours Appropriate behaviour 10. Expression of other behaviours 11. Good human-animal relationship 12. Absence of fear 192

193 13.3. Methodology for composing hazard lists Two methods were applied to structure and compose the list of hazards. The first method started with listing possible adverse effects and then indentifying the hazards causing the adverse effects. This method is referred to as Criteria to Hazard. The other method starts with identifying the hazards and then lists the adverse effects that are caused by the hazard. This is referred to as Hazard to Criteria. The 12 animal welfare assessment criteria are either used as framework to start the identification of adverse effects in a structured way or as last check to see if all areas of animal welfare are covered when hazard lists are composed. Per species, type of animal, housing/management system the steps for the two methods are: Criteria to Hazard: Hazard to Criteria: WQ criteria ---- adverse effects ---- hazards hazards ---- adverse effects ---- WQ criteria The two different approaches are suitable for different situations. RA questions may not always be focused on general issues, but on specific questions, so it is not necessary to produce large tables with all possible welfare issues. Although this project has produced these large tables, they should be seen as references but mostly not needed in total. They should be regarded as example lists and guidelines for future groups to facilitate them making hazard lists. The method to choose depends on specific question that needs to be answered, but will also depend on individual preferences. There is no general method, the order of the events to choose is dictated by the question. If the risk question focuses on a limited number of AW problems, e.g. abnormal behaviour, the effect side is already defined and one can start directly looking for hazards (Criteria to Hazard approach). On the other hand, if the risk question concerns a limited number of housing aspects, the cause side is restricted and one can start looking for AW effects (Hazard to Criteria). If none is pre-defined, i.e. the risk question is very unspecific ( find all AW risks associated with all types of housing, etc.), then one will have to choose how to organise the list. The way to structure the tables with hazards will partly be coming forward from the approach used and partly be dictated by individual preferences Criteria to Hazard - method The Criteria to Hazard - method starts with the 12 Welfare Quality criteria and then specifies the adverse effects affecting the particular WQ-criteria and the hazards causing those adverse effects. There are advantages and disadvantages to this method: Advantages: the method is helpful for comparing welfare criteria by starting with the 12 WQ-criteria it ensures to cover all welfare aspects the method yields a catalogue of adverse effects there is an easy starting point (no blank sheet of paper), being the 12 WQ-criteria 193

194 Disadvantages: As hazard are associated with more WQ-criteria, the WQ-method generates a lot of replicates in hazards causing the list to become very long As consequences can be associated with more than one hazard and hazards can be associated with more than one WQ-criterion, the list will comprise a lot of replicates and therefore will become very large. Not all hazards can be identified through the WQ criteria easily, presumably because they were designed for assessment of AW status, not AW risks. For instance, Mechanical noise. It can result from ventilation fans or other machinery and it can both reduce hearing ability and cause stress (criterion 7), and reduce social vocal communication (criteria 9 and 10). It is likely that there are other hazards which are also difficult to find through the WQ criteria. The Criteria to Hazard -method seems very suitable for specific welfare questions. To explore the WQ-method, it was applied on two specific housing conditions of pigs. The lists included both hazards and adverse effects Hazard to Criteria -method The Hazard to Criteria method starts by checking the housing and or management in a systematic way and listing the hazards that are identified. Then WQ-criteria are added. Hazards are linked to one or more WQ-criteria. In this way it was not helpful in indentifying hazards, but they did help in thinking of what are the consequences. This Hazard to Criteria - method also has advantages and disadvantages: Advantages: The method is helpful in identifying the most important adverse effects (often these are the ones that relate to many WQ-criteria). By starting with the hazards and having the WQ-criteria in columns, the amount of repetition is limited and thus the total list is not exploding to an unworkable length. Disadvantages: It seems less structured around animal welfare, so maybe one could miss welfare hazards easier earlier compared to starting with the 12 WQ-criteria. The Hazard to Criteria -method was applied by the EFSA-pig-group, except for the last bit (the 12 criteria). Also for this project the method was tested on the cattle list presented by the EFSA Working Group on Dairy Cattle Welfare (EFSA, 2009). Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages and depending on the situation one or both can be used. Using both gives the opportunity of cross-checking. 194

195 General list of hazards Apart from the above mentioned approaches a more generalized list, independent from animal species was produced. This list includes all possible types of hazards relating to housing and management and is expressed in general terms so that it can be applied to any species and housing situation. Although the list could be presented by the Criteria to Hazard approach or by the Hazard to Criteria approach, it was made using the criteria to Hazard approach and thus starting with the 12 Welfare Quality criteria. This approach is good for standardised screening, and may be a good framework for future work. The drawback is that risk assessment based on such a general list is likely to be less accurate. Further testing is required to investigate if it can replace detailed species-specific risk assessment or standardise risk assessment and make risk estimates comparable between assessment systems and between husbandry systems. For the general list of hazards existing lists of hazards were used as an aid to first see if it is possible to compose a list of hazards starting from the 12 Welfare Quality criteria and then make a general list. After composing the general list, it was used to compose lists of hazards for the poultry species for which no hazard lists were available. 195

196 14. CRITERIA TO HAZARD -METHOD Objective The Criteria to Hazard -method has been worked out for pigs. It was based on the Welfare Quality assessment system (Welfare Quality, 2009). The objective was to see if it was possible to compile a list of hazards starting with the 12 WQ-criteria and to see if comparing systems could be done in this way Method Hazard identification according to this approach was carried out in pigs with different housing and management conditions. The hazard list was compared between pregnant sows in electronic feeding (ESF) and free access stalls and between growing pigs in fully slatted floors and deep litter (Annex 1 and 2). Furthermore, a list of hazards for sheep in extensive conditions was also developed according to this method Results and discussion Using this approach, one hazard appears several times in the hazards list, it appears as many times as different welfare criteria it affects. This will allow in the following step of the risk assessment (hazard characterization) to score the effect of the hazard within each welfare criterion independently. When comparing two different housing systems, sometimes it becomes difficult to know if one hazard should be included in the list of hazards. For example, when doing the hazard lists for growing pigs in fully-slatted floor and deep litter system there are some hazards like for example Poor flooring (slipperiness) that are much more frequent in one system than in the other. However the hazard should appear in both lists and it will be in the hazard characterization where they will be scored with a different severity or exposure assessment Conclusions The methodology used aims at classifying the hazard according to the 12 Welfare Quality criteria. Grouping the hazards per criteria allows carrying out the hazard characterization independently per criteria and ranking the hazards within each criterion. With this approach one hazard might apply to several criteria, and therefore will be analyzed independently for each welfare aspect. Therefore, this approach does not provide a general score for each hazard, as it would be different according to the criteria applied. In general, this methodology allows establishing a more systematic approach when creating the list of hazards which facilitates the development of a more complete list of hazards. Depending on the final objective of the risk assessment (if the final objective is to have a general ranking of all the hazards in one housing system or if the final objective is to know the most important hazards that affect one aspect of animal welfare), the methodology used to create the list of hazards should be accordingly selected. 196

197 15. HAZARD TO CRITERIA -METHOD Objective Rather than producing a new complete list of hazards and hazard characterisations in relation to housing and management of all types of cattle which would have been a tremendous exercise the task was restricted to further development of an already existing hazard list for dairy cattle. The objective was to study to what extent the establishment of a hazard list can be systematised and facilitated by relating each hazard to different aspects of animal welfare Method The hazard list presented by the EFSA Working Group on Dairy Cattle Welfare (EFSA, 2009) was used. The list was prepared in Microsoft Excel and comprised totally 73 hazards, including specifications and characterisations. By subjective judgement of project personnel (one person), each hazard was associated with one or several of the following twelve animal welfare criteria listed by the Welfare Quality project (2009), by ticking appropriate columns in the spreadsheet Results and discussion The hazard list with specifications, characterisations and associated animal welfare criteria is presented in Annex 3. Most hazards were associated with more than one criterion (minimum 0; median 4; maximum 10 criteria). Two of the hazards were not associated with any of the criteria, the adverse effect being specified as reduced longevity. The hazards associated with ten of the criteria were denoted as improper management of downer cow and insufficient or inappropriate care of animals by humans by neglect or lack of knowledge, indicating that these hazards influence many different aspects of AW Conclusion In conclusion, by relating hazards to specific AW criteria, as specified by e.g. the Welfare Quality project, hazard characterisation is to some extent facilitated and standardised. A standardised list of AW criteria or aspects appears most useful. Specific AW criteria are not very helpful in hazard identification. 197

198 16. GENERAL LIST OF HAZARDS Objective The objective was to create a general list of hazards, that can be used as starting document when creating hazards lists for AWRA. Such a general list could be suitable for standardised comparison of systems or species Method For making the general list of hazards, the broiler breeder list was used as a starting point. The hazards were reformulated to more general hazards and where species-specific hazards were present, these were made more general. Then the list was checked for other poultry species and items were added or modified. Finally the list was reviewed for other species and more hazards were added and descriptions were made more general. The final product is a list with general hazards for each WQ-criterion (Annex 4). As hazards can be linked to more than one WQ-criterion, replicates of hazards are present. For each WQcriterion up to 8 hazards were identified. From the general list of hazards, species-specific lists were then compiled for laying hens, turkeys, ducks and geese Results and discussion In composing this list it appeared difficult to describe hazards in a general way without being too vague. Also it is not always clear what is a hazard description and what is a hazard specification. Finally, when the general list of hazards was ready, it appeared easy to build lists of hazards for various poultry species by specifying each hazard for the animal involved. Still, as no specification per housing system has been made, this list is still quite general for the species involved. The purpose of these lists is not to be exhaustive in all details, but to provide a good starting point for future groups and/or to be able to carry out a quick screening. For this purpose the list seems to be suitable Conclusions The general list of hazards can be a suitable tool to generate a species-specific list of hazards in short time. This list will not be exhaustive, but will provide a good basis for further work. 198

199 17. REFERENCES Botreau, R.; Veissier, I.; Butterworth, A.; Bracke, M.B.M.; Keeling, L.J, Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare, Volume 16, Number 2, May 2007, pp (4) EFSA, Scientific report on the effects of farming systems on dairy cow welfare and disease. Report of the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (Question No. EFSA-Q ). European Food Safety Authority. Annex to the EFSA Journal 1143, Accessed at: 1 Feb Report, 284 pp. Webster, J Animal Welfare, A cool eye towards Eden. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, UK. Welfare Quality, Animal Welfare principles and criteria formulated by Welfare Quality. Accessed at: 29 Mar Internet website. 199

200 18. ANNEX 1A: HAZARD LIST PREGNANT SOWS IN ELECTRONIC FEEDING (ESF) System WQ criteria Hazard ESF Hunger Computational problems ESF Hunger Electronic problems not allowing proper function of the system ESF Hunger Loss of individual identification ESF Hunger Inadequate ratio feeders/number of animals ESF Hunger Lack of bulky or high-fibre food ESF Hunger Too high restricted feeding level ESF Hunger Not teaching of sows to use the electronic sow feeder in the absence of older, more dominant sows ESF Hunger Sows not learning how to use the system (unadapted sows that have to be removed may suffer hunger before being removed) ESF Thirst Inadequate number of drinking devices ESF Thirst Drinking devices not working properly ESF Thirst Not adequate water flow ESF Thirst Inadequate position of drinker devices ESF Thirst Inadequate drinking facilities (facilities not adjusted to animal species/category) ESF Thirst Not adequate water quality ESF Comfort around resting High stocking density ESF Comfort around resting Poor flooring conditions ESF Comfort around resting No bedding ESF Comfort around resting Insufficient long dark period ESF Comfort around resting Too little light intensity or for insufficient time ESF Comfort around resting Inadequate position of drinker devices ESF Thermal comfort Not appropiate bedding for the period or the climate ESF Thermal comfort Lack of showering facilities ESF Thermal comfort High stocking density ESF Thermal comfort Housing facilities without climate control ESF Ease of locomotion High stocking density ESF Ease of locomotion Poor flooring conditions (slipperiness) ESF Ease of locomotion Inadequate lenght or width of pens ESF Injuries Mixing of unfamiliar sows (higher skin lesions at the front of the body, Backus et al. 1997). ESF Injuries Aggressive interactions around feeding ESF Injuries Not inspection of sows ESF Injuries Poor flooring conditions (quality of the slats with sharp or damaged edges) (leading to claw injuries) ESF Injuries No bedding (fewer hoof lesions among sows kept on straw or deep litter bedding than among those on solid concrete floors and partly slatted floors) ESF Injuries Inadequate "quality" of bedding ESF Injuries Inadequate management of bedding material ESF Injuries Lack of elasticity of hard flooring material (lesions) 200

201 ESF Injuries Poor flooring conditions (slippery) ESF Injuries Not adequate slot dimensions in relation to the foot dimensions ESF Disease Higher level of aggression (higher number of sows that returned to oestrus) ESF Disease Not regular inspection of sows ESF Disease Lack of bulky or high-fibre food (provoques stomach ulcers) ESF Disease Inadequate maintenance of pen facilities (feeders, drinkers, floors, walls) ESF Disease Inadequate barriers to vectors ESF Disease High stocking density ESF Disease Inadequate ventilation ESF Pain Inappropriate human behaviour during moving, inspection and handling (slapping, kicking, use of electrical prodders) ESF Pain Biting of vulva ESF Human-animal relationship Inappropriate human behaviour during moving, inspection and handling (slapping, kicking, use of electrical prodders) ESF Human-animal relationship Vaccinations and treatments ESF Human-animal relationship Not inspection of sows ESF Social behaviour Mixing of unfamiliar sows ESF Social behaviour Aggressive interactions around feeding ESF Social behaviour High stocking density ESF Social behaviour Grouping of sows of different age and/or size ESF Social behaviour Animals housed alone in empty pens ESF Other behaviour Lack of foraging/exploration material ESF Other behaviour Provision of an inappropriate exploration material such as chains or tyres (frustation may occur) ESF Other behaviour No provision of surfaces suitable for body-rubbing ESF Fear Loud noises ESF Fear Very bright lights ESF Fear Flashing lights ESF Fear Inappropriate human behaviour during moving, inspection and handling (slapping, kicking, use of electrical prodders) 19. ANNEX 1B: HAZARD LIST PREGNANT SOWS IN FREE ACCESS STALLS System WQ criteria Hazard Free access stall Hunger Electronic problems that makes the system does not work Free access stall Hunger Lack of bulky or high-fibre food Free access stall Hunger Too high restricted feeding level Free access stall Hunger Short periods of underfeeding Free access stall Hunger Inadequate number of feeding spaces to allow simultaneous feeding of all sows Free access stall Thirst Inadequate number of drinking devices Free access stall Thirst Drinking devices not working properly 201

202 Free access stall Thirst Not adequate water flow Free access stall Thirst Inadequate position of drinker devices Free access stall Thirst Inadequate drinking facilities (facilities not adjusted to animal species/category) Free access stall Thirst Not adequate water quality Free access stall Comfort around resting High stocking density Free access stall Comfort around resting Insufficient long dark period Free access stall Comfort around resting Too little light intensity or for insufficient time Free access stall Comfort around resting No bedding Free access stall Comfort around resting Inadequate position of drinker devices Free access stall Thermal comfort Not appropiate bedding for the period or the climate Free access stall Thermal comfort Lack of showering facilities Free access stall Thermal comfort High stocking density Free access stall Thermal comfort Housing facilities without climate control Free access stall Ease of locomotion Poor flooring conditions (slipperiness) Free access stall Ease of locomotion Inadequate length or width of pens Free access stall Injuries Not inspection of sows Free access stall Injuries Poor flooring conditions (quality of the slats with sharp or damaged edges) (leading to claw injuries) Free access stall Injuries No bedding (fewer hoof lesions among sows kept on straw or deep litter bedding than among those on solid concrete floors and partly slatted floors) Free access stall Injuries Inadequate "quality" of bedding Free access stall Injuries Inadequate management of bedding material Free access stall Injuries Too high stocking density Free access stall Injuries Not adequate slot dimensions in relation to the foot dimensions Free access stall Injuries Lack of elasticity of hard flooring material (lesions) Free access stall Injuries Not regular inspection of sows Free access stall Disease Lack of bulky or high-fibre food (provoques stomach ulcers) Free access stall Disease Poor quality pen design (open sides between adjacent pens) Free access stall Disease Inadequate maintenance of pen facilities (feeders, drinkers, floors, walls) Free access stall Disease Inadequate barriers to vectors Free access stall Disease High stocking density Free access stall Disease Inadequate ventilation Free access stall Pain Inappropriate human behaviour during moving, inspection and handling (slapping, kicking, use of electrical prodders) Free access stall Pain Vulva biting Free access stall Human-animal relationship Inappropriate human behaviour during moving, inspection and handling (slapping, kicking, use of electrical prodders) Free access stall Human-animal relationship Vaccinations and treatments Free access stall Human-animal relationship Not inspection of sows Free access stall Social behaviour Poor quality pen design (open sides between adjacent pens) Free access stall Social behaviour High stocking density 202

203 Free access stall Social behaviour Animals housed alone in empty pens Free access stall Other behaviour Animals are not allowed to divide their daily ration in different portions Free access stall Other behaviour Lack of foraging/exploration material Free access stall Other behaviour Provision of an inappropriate exploration material such as chains or tyres (frustation may occur) Free access stall Other behaviour Non provision of surfaces suitable for body-rubbing Free access stall Fear Loud noises Free access stall Fear Very bright lights Free access stall Fear Flashing lights Free access stall Fear Inappropriate human behaviour during moving, inspection and handling (slapping, kicking, use of electrical prodders) 203

204 20. ANNEX 2A: HAZARD LIST GROWING PIGS IN FULLY SLATTED FLOORS System WQ criteria Hazards Fully-slatted floor Hunger Inadequate supply of food Fully-slatted floor Hunger Inadequate ratio feeders/number of animals Fully-slatted floor Hunger High competence for food Fully-slatted floor Thirst Inadequate number of drinking devices Fully-slatted floor Thirst Drinking devices not working properly Fully-slatted floor Thirst Inadequate position of drinker devices Fully-slatted floor Thirst Inadequate drinking facilities (facilities not adjusted to animal species/category) Fully-slatted floor Thirst Not adequate water flow Fully-slatted floor Thirst Not adequate water quality Fully-slatted floor Comfort around resting Not appropriate perforation of slats to keep the pen clean from manure and urine Fully-slatted floor Comfort around resting No bedding Fully-slatted floor Comfort around resting High stocking density Fully-slatted floor Comfort around resting Huddling in cold conditions Fully-slatted floor Comfort around resting Insufficient long dark period Fully-slatted floor Comfort around resting Too little light intensity or for insufficient time Fully-slatted floor Comfort around resting Inadequate position of drinker devices Fully-slatted floor Thermal comfort No bedding Fully-slatted floor Thermal comfort High stocking density Fully-slatted floor Thermal comfort Housing facilities without climate control Fully-slatted floor Thermal comfort Lack of showering facilities Fully-slatted floor Ease of locomotion High stocking density Fully-slatted floor Ease of locomotion Poor flooring conditions (slipperiness or quality of the slats) Fully-slatted floor Ease of locomotion Inadequate length or width of pens Fully-slatted floor Injuries Lack of elasticity of hard flooring material (lesions) Fully-slatted floor Injuries Not adequate slot dimensions in relation to the foot dimensions Fully-slatted floor Injuries Mixing of unfamiliar animals Fully-slatted floor Injuries Not inspection of pigs Fully-slatted floor Injuries Poor flooring conditions (slipperiness or quality of the slats) Fully-slatted floor Injuries Tail-biting Fully-slatted floor Injuries Too high energy and protein content in the diet (produces leg disorders, EFSA 2007) Fully-slatted floor Disease Flow rates producing gas emissions from the slurry pit to the pens Fully-slatted floor Disease Not appropriate perforation of slats to keep the pen clean from manure and urine Fully-slatted floor Disease Not regular inspection of pigs Fully-slatted floor Disease Too high energy and protein content in the diet (produces leg disorders, EFSA 2007) 204

205 Fully-slatted floor Disease Mixing of unfamiliar animals Fully-slatted floor Disease Poor quality pen design (open sides between adjacent pens) Fully-slatted floor Disease Inadequate maintenance of pen facilities (feeders, drinkers, floors, walls) Fully-slatted floor Disease Inadequate barriers to vectors Fully-slatted floor Disease High stocking density Fully-slatted floor Disease Inadequate ventilation Fully-slatted floor Pain Tail-biting Fully-slatted floor Pain Inappropriate human behaviour during moving, inspection and handling (slapping, kicking, use of electrical prodders) Fully-slatted floor Human-animal relationship Inappropriate human behaviour during moving, inspection and handling (slapping, kicking, use of electrical prodders) Fully-slatted floor Human-animal relationship Vaccinations and treatments Fully-slatted floor Human-animal relationship Not inspection of pigs Fully-slatted floor Social behaviour Mixing of unfamiliar animals Fully-slatted floor Social behaviour Grouping of pigs of different age and/or size Fully-slatted floor Social behaviour Poor quality pen design (open sides between adjacent pens) Fully-slatted floor Social behaviour High stocking density Fully-slatted floor Social behaviour Animals housed alone in empty pens Fully-slatted floor Other behaviour Lack of foraging/exploration material Fully-slatted floor Other behaviour Provision of an inappropriate material such as chains or tyres (frustation may occur) Fully-slatted floor Other behaviour Non provision of surfaces suitable for body-rubbing Fully-slatted floor Fear Loud noises Fully-slatted floor Fear Very bright lights Fully-slatted floor Fear Flashing lights Fully-slatted floor Fear Inappropriate human behaviour during moving, inspection and handling (slapping, kicking, use of electrical prodders) 205

206 21. ANNEX 2B: HAZARD LIST GROWING PIGS IN DEEP LITTER System WQ criteria Hazard Deep litter system Hunger Inadequate supply of food Deep litter system Hunger Inadequate ratio feeders/number of animals Deep litter system Hunger High competence for food Deep litter system Thirst Inadequate number of drinking devices Deep litter system Thirst Drinking devices not working properly Deep litter system Thirst Not adequate water flow Deep litter system Thirst Inadequate position of drinker devices Deep litter system Thirst Inadequate drinking facilities (facilities not adjusted to animal species/category) Deep litter system Thirst Not adequate water flow Deep litter system Thirst Not adequate water quality Deep litter system Comfort around resting High stocking density Deep litter system Comfort around resting Too little light intensity or for insufficient time Deep litter system Comfort around resting Insufficient long dark period Deep litter system Comfort around resting Inadequate position of drinker devices Deep litter system Thermal comfort Fermenting of bedding during summer periods Deep litter system Thermal comfort High stocking density Deep litter system Thermal comfort Housing facilities without climate control Deep litter system Thermal comfort Non access in warm conditions to an additional area with a different floor quality to cool down Deep litter system Ease of locomotion High stocking density Deep litter system Ease of locomotion Poor flooring conditions (slipperiness or quality of the slats) Deep litter system Ease of locomotion Inadequate length or width of pens Deep litter system Injuries Mixing of unfamiliar animals Deep litter system Injuries Not inspection of pigs Deep litter system Injuries Tail-biting Deep litter system Injuries Not adequate slot dimensions in relation to the foot dimensions Deep litter system Injuries Too high energy and protein content in the diet (produces leg disorders, EFSA 2007) Deep litter system Disease Bacterial contamination of straw (endotoxin) Deep litter system Disease Provision of straw of poor quality (respitarory problems) Deep litter system Disease Use of wood chips and saw dust (respiratory problems) Deep litter system Disease Not regular inspection of pigs Deep litter system Disease Increased emissions of ammonia, nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogen and methane Deep litter system Disease Inadequate maintenance of pen facilities (feeders, drinkers, floors, walls) Deep litter system Disease Inadequate barriers to vectors Deep litter system Disease High stocking density Deep litter system Disease Inadequate ventilation 206

207 Deep litter system Disease Badly maintained, wet and dirt deep bedding (infectious claw diseases) Deep litter system Disease Too high energy and protein content in the diet (produces leg disorders, EFSA 2007) Deep litter system Disease Exposure of pigs to their faeces and urine (enteric diseases) Deep litter system Disease Mixing of unfamiliar animals Deep litter system Disease Poor quality pen design (open sides between adjacent pens) Deep litter system Pain Tail-biting Deep litter system Pain Inappropriate human behaviour during moving, inspection and handling (slapping, kicking, use of electrical prodders) Deep litter system Human-animal relationship Inappropriate human behaviour during moving, inspection and handling (slapping, kicking, use of electrical prodders) Deep litter system Human-animal relationship Vaccinations and treatments Deep litter system Human-animal relationship Not inspection of pigs Deep litter system Social behaviour Mixing of unfamiliar animals Deep litter system Social behaviour Grouping of pigs of different age and/or size Deep litter system Social behaviour Poor quality pen design (open sides between adjacent pens) Deep litter system Social behaviour High stocking density Deep litter system Social behaviour Animals housed alone in empty pens Deep litter system Other behaviour Non provision of surfaces suitable for body-rubbing Deep litter system Fear Loud noises Deep litter system Fear Very bright lights Deep litter system Fear Flashing lights Fully-slatted floor Fear Inappropriate human behaviour during moving, inspection and handling (slapping, kicking, use of electrical prodders) 207

208 Absence of prolonged hunger Absence of prolonged thirst Comfort around resting Thermal comfort Ease of movement Absence of injuries Absence of disease Absence of pain induced by management Expression of social behaviour Expression Good human-animal of other behaviour relationship Positive emotional state EFSA Housing Risk 22. ANNEX 3: HAZARD LIST DAIRY CATTLE Husbandry aspect Need Hazard description Hazard specification Adverse effect housing breathing, inadequate ventilation, too low ventilation 60 days overheating, increased thermoregulation inappropriate airflow, per year pathology housing breathing, thermoregulation airspeed inadequate ventilation, inappropriate airflow, airspeed too low ventilation 200 days per year housing breathing poor air quality too high ammonia, bioaerosols and dust 60 days per year overheating, increased pathology respiratory disease, malaise, discomfort x x x x x x x x Comment housing breathing poor air quality too high ammonia, bioaerosols and dust 200 days per year respiratory disease, malaise, discomfort x x housing sensory imput insufficient light level during day time too dark (for both cows and stockperson) inability to carry out normal behaviour, injuries, diseases not detected housing sensory imput light duration too short inability to carry out normal behaviour, reproduction problems housing sensory imput light duration too long too little rest, decrease in immune function housing rest, social, pain poor stall, furniture or other housing design too litte rest, injuries, behaviour disruption, disease, injuries, fear x x x x x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria x x x x x x x x x x 208

209 housing rest, pain, exercise inadequate floor locomotion, injuries, claw and leg disorders, maintenance behaviour, reproduction, housing housing rest, foraging, thermoregulation rest, exercise, social, maintenance inadequate bedding lack of space, e.g. for exercising, social interactions and resting too little rest, injuries, mastitis, claw and leg disorders, thermal discomfort too little rest, locomotion, behaviour disruption, injuries, social stress, disease x x x x x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria x x x x x x x x x x x x x housing lack of facilities for sick animals housing rest, pain, social inbalanced ratio cow/cubicle housing housing water, thermoregulation social, fear, pain, disease too little rest, locomotion, frustration, social stress, disease insufficient access to water inappropriate system design thirst, dehydration, social stress, frustration, inadequate handling facilities x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x disease, injury, fear x x x x x x housing use of cow trainers x x x x x housing poor maintenance of housing etc housing pain, fear, disease inadequate milking parlour design housing pain, fear, disease inadequate milking parlour design housing pain, fear, disease inadequate milking equipment housing thermoregulation inappropriate temperature, humidity housing thermoregulation inappropriate temperature, humidity conventional system automatic milking system too hot/high humidity Insufficient protection from adverse weather conditions fear, injury, mastitis and other diseases fear, injury, mastitis and other diseases, social disruption fear, injury, mastitis and teat disorders thermal discomfort, disease, reduced or delayed fertility, sun-burn thermal discomfort, disease, reduced or delayed fertility, sun-burn, housing reproduction, fear poor calving conditions pen design, facilities social stress, fear, injury, dystocia, disease housing reproduction, fear poor calving conditions calving management social stress, fear, injury, dystocia, disease, increased x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 209

210 mortality housing nutrition, fear, social too few feeding places social stress, injuries, hunger, frustration, behaviour disruption x x x x x housing access to outdoor x x x x housing zero-grazing x x x x x x nutrition and feeding nutrition and feeding nutrition and feeding water, thermoregulation water, thermoregulation insufficient provision of water water quality: inappropriate water temperature water quality: inadequate hygiene and contamination control in water too high or too low prevalence of pathogen and toxic substances affecting cattle thirst, disease, frustration, thermal discomfort x x x x x x x x x x nutrition and feeding nutrition and feeding nutrition, disease poor feed quality nutritive value chronic hunger, excessive loss of body condition, exhaustion, diseases, nutrition, disease poor feed quality prevalence of pathogen and toxic substances affecting cattle x x x x x x nutrition and feeding nutrition underfeeding including inadequate nutrient supply in relation to genotype and high metabolic output chronic hunger, excessive loss of body condition, exhaustion, diseases x x x x nutrition and feeding nutrition and feeding nutrition and feeding nutrition, disease, pain nutrition, disease inadequate transition feeding overfeeding inadequate feeding schedule forage, concentrate balance and regularity ketosis and other metabolic disorders, dystocia, infertility inappetance, digestive disorders, other diseases x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria x x x nutrition and feeding nutrition, disease insufficient fibre quality and quantity including fibre length digestive and behaviour disorders, other diseases x x x management foraging, exploration, social interaction, exercise being tied up behaviour abnormalities, frustration, leg disorders, inhability to carry out maintenance behaviour, metabolic disorders x x x x x x x 210

211 management social, fear, pain mixing animals from different groups management social, fear, pain insufficient or inappropriate contact with humans management management social, disease, pain social, disease, pain insufficient or inappropriate care of animals by humans insufficient or inappropriate care of animals by humans management disease inadequate preventive medicine, herd-health management social disruption, injuries, fear, reproductive disorders, other diseases, leg and claw disorders fear, injuries, reproductive and other disorders x x x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria x x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria neglect hunger, thirst, disease x x x x x x x x x x lack of knowledge hunger, thirst, disease x x x x x x x x x x infectious disease malaise, infectious disease x x management hormone treatment x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria management inadeqate biosecurity inadequate cleaning (and disinfection) on the farm disease x x x x x management inadeqate biosecurity introducing diseased cattle x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria management inadeqate biosecurity inadequate control of pest and vectors summer mastitis x x management inadeqate biosecurity introducing toxins e.g. mycotoxins, PCBs etc management inadequate clinical health monitoring management witholding necessary veterinary therapeutic health care, poor health and welfare plan. management pain, disease improper analgesia during surgery management pain, disease improper post-operational pain management including recording and planning poor health control plan. disease, including unnecessarily prolonged disease disease, including unnecessarily prolonged disease x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria x x x x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria x x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria Dehorning x x x x Dehorning x x x x x management pain, disease being tail-docked insect defence x x x 211

212 management pain, disease improper analgesia during surgery Any surgery (e.g. caesarean, displaced abomasum) x x x x management pain, disease improper post-operational pain management Any surgery (e.g. caesarean, displaced abomasum) x x x x x management pain, disease improper analgesia during procedure management pain, disease improper post-operational pain management management pain, disease improper analgesia during procedure management pain, disease improper post-operational pain management management pain, disease improper management of the adverse consequences of any surgery management pain, disease improper analgesia during procedure management pain, disease improper post-operational pain management management pain, disease difficult calving because of the sire Foot treatment x x x x x Foot treatment x x x x x x Obstetric interventions x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria Obstetric interventions x x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria Obstetric interventions x x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria Foetotomy x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria Foetotomy x x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria x x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria x x x x x x x x x x management pain, disease improper management of "Downer cow" management pain, disease use of electric goads x x x genetics genetics genetics genetic selection for higher production ignoring other traits genetic selection for higher production ignoring other traits genetic selection for higher production ignoring other traits with feasible management increased constraint on time available for activities without feasible management increased constraint on time available for activities with feasible management increased likelihood of disease x x x x x x x x x x 212

213 genetics genetics genetics genetics genetics genetic selection for higher production ignoring other traits genetic selection for higher production ignoring other traits genetic selection for higher production ignoring other traits genetic selection for higher production ignoring other traits genetic selection for higher production ignoring other traits without feasible management increased likelihood of disease with feasible management increased likelihood of reproductive disorders without feasible management increased likelihood of reproductive disorders x x x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria x x x Reproductive performance not among WQ criteria with feasible management reduced longevity Longevity not among WQ criteria without feasible management reduced longevity Longevity not among WQ criteria 213

214 23. ANNEX 4: GENERAL LIST OF HAZARDS Welfare principles Welfare criteria Hazards Good feeding 1 Absence of prolonged hunger Feed restriction Over-feeding Inappropriate diet Inappropriate feeders Too few feeding places 2 Absence of prolonged thirst Water restriction Inappropriate water quality and/of water temperature Inappropriate drinkers Too few drinking places Good housing 3 Comfort around resting Inappropriate environmental enrichment Insuficient environmental enrichment 4 Thermal comfort High temperatures and humidity Low temperatures and humidity Poor ventilation 5 Ease of movement Poor housing design and allocation of resources Insuficient environmental enrichment Lack of space High stocking density Inappropriate environmental enrichment Good health 6 Absence of injuries Poor housing design and allocation of resources Inappropriate environmental enrichment Damaging behaviour to conspecifics Self mutilating behaviour 7 Absence of disease Poor ventilation / air quality Inappropriate diet or water quality Inadequate biosecurity Poor precautions for parasites and pests Inadequate preventive medication, health management High risk for contact with wildlife Genetic selection for traits causing health risks Good health 8 Absence of pain induced by management procedures Mutilations Poorly carried out mutilations Not mutilating Lack of appropriate training for stockpersons and animal handlers Rough handling Inadequate handling facilities Difficult birth due to genetic reasons Lack of facilities for sick animals Appropriate behaviour 9 Expression of social behaviours 10 Expression of other behaviours 11 Good human-animal relationship 12 Positive emotional state Inappropriate environmental enrichment Poor housing design and allocation of resources Inappropriate environmental enrichment Inappropriate light intensity (incl. natural lighting) Inappropriate light cycle Lack of contact with conspecifics Reduced possibilities to move (lack of space / tethering) Reduced possibilities to move (lack of space / tethering) Inappropriate environmental enrichment Poor housing design and allocation of resources Insufficient environmental enrichment Inappropriate light intensity (incl. natural lighting) Inappropriate light cycle Insufficient or inapporopriate acces to outdoor Insufficient / inapporopriate contact with humans Insufficient / inapporopriate care of animals by humans Inadequate clinical health monitoring 214

215 24. ANNEX 5: HAZARD LIST BROILER BREEDERS Welfare principles Good feeding Good housing Good health Welfare criteria Hazards Consequence 1 Absence of prolonged hunger Inappropriate diet Hunger Feed restriction Hunger Abnormal behaviour (overdrinking, spotpecking) Reduced mobility Reduced ability to reach feed/water when motivated 2 Absence of prolonged thirst Inappropriate diet Thirst Reduced mobility Reduced ability to reach feed/water when motivated 3 Comfort around resting Poor housing design and allocation of resources Reduced behavioural repertoire Injury through contact with physical structures High stocking density Disturbed rest periods De-toeing Inability to perch 4 Thermal comfort High temperatures and humidity Hyperthermia/heat stress (post-prandial) Poor ventilation Hyperthermia (temperature and relative humidity) Feed restriction Hyperthermia (post-prandial) High stocking density Heat stress 5 Ease of movement Poor housing design and allocation of resources Reduced behavioural repertoire Conventional cages Reduced behavioural repertoire Movement restriction High stocking density Movement restriction Reduced behavioural repertoire More males in a reduced area (male-male interaction) Inappropriate enrichment Birds getting trapped in enrichment objects Reduced mobility Reduced ability to perform normal behavioural repertoire Reduced ability to reach feed/water when motivated 6 Absence of injuries Wet litter Atmospheric ammonia irritating the respiratory tract Atmospheric ammonia irritating the eyes Pain from hock burns Pain from foot pad dermatitis Feed restriction Injury (scratches, pecking) High stocking density Injury through contact with other birds Injury through contact with physical structures Inappropriate enrichment Birds getting trapped in enrichment objects Injury Poor housing design and allocation of resources Injury through contact with other birds 215

216 Injury through contact with physical structures 7 Absence of disease Overly dry litter Dust irritating the respiratory tract including increased bacterial load Poor ventilation Increased exposure to endotoxins (inflammatory response in mucus membranes), dust, atmospheric ammonia irritating the respiratory tract Inappropriate diet Diet-related skin problems Diet-related bone problems Outbreak of feather pecking Ad lib feeding Inability to walk / leg weakness Metabolic disorders (ascites, SDS) More spiking Genetic selection for fast growth Suffering from necessary feed restriction to prevent obesity Metabolic disorders Leg weakness (males) High stocking density Increased transmission of infectious diseases Reduced air quality Inappropriate light cycle Delayed or early sexual maturity Egg peritonitis/ salpingitis 8 Absence of pain induced by management procedures Beak trimming (in early age) Pain at time of beak trimming On-going pain Handling-related stress Deformed beak leading to feeding difficulties De-spurring Pain at time of de-spurring On-going pain Handling-related stress Comb dubbing Pain at time of comb dubbing On-going pain Handling-related stress De-toeing Pain at time of de-toeing On-going pain Handling-related stress Not mutilating Injury by others Lack of appropriate training for stockpersons and animal handlers Culling too late Inefficient culling method Injury during catching process Injury during (de)crating process Inappropriate shackling Insufficient stunning 216

217 Appropriate behaviour 9 Expression of social behaviours Barren environments Reduced behavioural repertoire Boredom Frustration Abnormal behaviour (feather, spot pecking ) High light intensity (incl. natural lighting) Feather pecking Aggression Scratches on the back of the bird Low light intensity Reduced behavioural repertoire Reduced activity Increased time spent in contact with litter Reduced perception ability of the bird Feed restriction Increased competition, aggression Frustration Abnormal behaviour (overdrinking, spotpecking) Inappropriate diet Outbreak of feather pecking 10 Expression of other behaviours Reduced mobility Reduced ability to perform normal behavioural repertoire Reduced ability to reach feed/water when motivated Birds experiencing pain Increased time spent in contact with litter Low light intensity Reduced behavioural repertoire Reduced activity Increased time spent in contact with litter Reduced perception ability of the bird Poor housing design and allocation of resources Frustration Conventional cages Abnormal behaviour (feather, spot pecking ) Boredom 11 Good human-animal relationship Lack of appropriate training for stockpersons and animal handlers Handling-associated stress 12 Positive emotional state 217

218 25. ANNEX 6: HAZARD LIST LAYING HENS Welfare principles Good feeding Good housing Welfare criteria Hazards Consequence 1 Absence of prolonged hunger Feed restriction hunger feather pecking Over-feeding fatty liver syndrome Inappropriate diet feather pecking bone weakness feather pecking Inappropriate feeders hunger Too few feeding places aggression hunger 2 Absence of prolonged thirst Water restriction thirst dehydration (in hot climate) Inappropriate water quality and/or water temperature thirst Inappropriate drinkers competition dehydration (in hot climate) thirst Too few drinking places competition aggression dehydration (in hot climate) thirst 3 Comfort around resting Inappropriate enrichment injuries Barren environment boredom feather pecking 4 Thermal comfort High temperatures and humidity heat stress Low temperatures and humidity Poor ventilation feather pecking eye problems due to high ammonia quality 5 Ease of movement Poor housing design and allocation of resources injuries Barren environment boredom Lack of space feather pecking injuries (scratches) High stocking density feather pecking Inappropriate enrichment injuries feather pecking behavioural restrictions 218

219 Good health Appropriate behaviour 6 Absence of injuries Poor housing design and allocation of resources injuries cannibalism behavioural restrictions Inappropriate enrichment behavioural restrictions feather pecking Damaging behaviour to conspecifics feather damage, cannibalism Self mutilating behaviour 7 Absence of disease Poor ventilation / air quality eye problems due to high ammonia quality Inappropriate diet or water quality diseases Inadequate biosecurity diseases Poor precautions for parasites and pests red mite plagues, worm infestations Inadequate preventive medication, health management red mite plagues, worm infestations High risk for contact with wildlife mortality caused by predators, AI-infection Genetic selection for traits causing health risks 8 Absence of pain induced by management procedures Mutilations pain caused by treatment prolonged pain caused by neuroma's Poorly carried out mutilations prolonged pain caused by neuroma's abnormal beaks Not mutilating feather pecking, cannibalism Lack of appropriate training for stockpersons and animal handlers broken bones Rough handling broken bones Inadequate handling facilities broken bones Difficult birth due to genetic reasons prolaps Lack of facilities for sick animals lack of shelter for sick birds 9 Expression of social behaviours Barren environments feather pecking Poor housing design and allocation of resources overcrowded nestboxes Insufficient environmental enrichments feather pecking Inappropriate light intensity (incl. natural lighting) feather pecking Inappropriate light cycle Lack of contact with conspecifics Reduced possibilities to move (lack of space / tied up / physical impossibility to express bird-own behaviour inability) 10 Expression of other behaviours Reduced possibilities to move (lack of space / tied up / physical impossible to express bird-own behaviour inability) Barren environments feather pecking Poor housing design and allocation of resources injuries Insufficient environmental enrichments feather pecking Inappropriate light intensity (incl. natural lighting) feather pecking 219

220 Inappropriate light cycle Insufficient or inappropriate access to outdoor reduced possibilities for explorative behaviour 11 Good human-animal relationship Insufficient / inappropriate contact with humans fear Insufficient / inappropriate care of animals by humans fear Inadequate clinical health monitoring prolonged pain 12 Positive emotional state 220

221 26. ANNEX 7: HAZARD LIST BROILERS Hazard High temperatures and humidity High stocking density Barren environments Wet litter Poor ventilation Low light intensity High light intensity (incl. Natural lighting) Light cycle (long photoperiod) Reduced mobility Inappropriate diet Unbalanced body conformation Consequences Hyperthermia/heat stress Movement restriction Reduced behavioural repertoire Heat stress Injury through contact with other birds Injuries through contact with physical structures Disturbed rest periods Increased transmission of infectious diseases Reduced litter quality (increased chance of I, etc...) Reduced air quality (irritation of respiratory tract and eyes etc) Reduced normal behavioural repertoire Boredom Frustration Atmospheric ammonia irritating the respiratory tract Atmospheric ammonia irritating the eyes Pain from hock burn Pain from footpad dermatitis Pain from breast burn Increased exposure to endotoxins (inflammatory response in mucous membranes), dust, atmospheric ammonia irritating the respiratory tract Hyperthermia (temperature and relative humidity) Reduced behavioural repertoire Reduced activity Increased time spent in contact with litter Reduced perception ability of the bird Scratches from other birds Disturbed rest Reduced ability to perform normal behavioural repertoire Reduced ability to reach feed/water when motivated Birds experiencing pain Increased time spent in contact with litter Digestive problems Diet-related bone problems Cleanliness of plumage Pain footpad dermatitis, hock burn etc (see wet litter) High body mass 221

222 Fast growth rate Crusted litter Pain from FPD Pain from breast blisters Lameness Ascites Leg weakness Sudden death syndrome Skeletal disorders Muscle disorders High body mass Reduced behavioural repertoire Inactivity (long periods of time in contact with litter) Pain from breast blisters 222

223 27. ANNEX 8: HAZARD LIST TURKEYS Welfare principles Good feeding Good housing Welfare criteria Hazards 1 Absence of prolonged hunger 2 Absence of prolonged thirst 3 Comfort around resting 4 Thermal comfort Feed restriction (mostly qualitative feed restriction in turkey breeding, But sometimes quantitative feed restriction) Over-feeding (only in turkey breeding) Inappropriate diet Inappropriate feeders Too few feeding places Water restriction Inappropriate water quality and/of water temperature Inappropriate drinkers Too few drinking places Inappropriate enrichment Barren environment High temperatures and humidity Consequence hunger feather pecking scratches reduced fertility feather pecking, cannibalism bone weakness small poults are not able to find feed hunger aggression cannibalism scratches small poults are not able to find feed hunger competition, aggression cannibalism scratches thirst dehydration scratches thirst thirst competition, aggression dehydration scratches small poults are not able to find water thirst competition, aggression dehydration scratches injuries small poults are not able to find food and water feather pecking, cannibalism heat stress malnutrition mortality 223

224 Good health 5 Ease of movement 6 Absence of injuries 7 Absence of disease 8 Absence of pain induced by management Low temperatures and humidity (only in young poults) Poor ventilation Poor housing design and allocation of resources Barren environment Lack of space High stocking density Inappropriate enrichment behavioural restrictions malnutrition mortality eye problems due to high ammonia concentrations respiratory diseases wet litter, foot pad dermatitis injuries cannibalism behavioural restrictions small poults are not able to find food and water feather pecking, cannibalism feather pecking, cannibalism scratches feather pecking, cannibalism behavioural restrictions extra disease risk injuries Poor housing design and allocation of resources injuries cannibalism behavioural restrictions Inappropriate enrichment injuries Damaging behaviour to conspecifics cannibalism Self mutilating behaviour - Poor ventilation / air quality eye problems due to high ammonia concentrations respiratory diseases wet litter, foot pad dermatitis Inappropriate diet or water quality malnutrition diseases Inadequate biosecurity diseases Poor precautions for parasites and pests histomonas (transmitted by worms) Inadequate preventive medication, health management histomonas (transmitted by worms) High risk for contact with wildlife histomonas (transmitted by worms) risk for diseases such as Avian Influenza risk for worm infections Genetic selection for traits causing health risks vitality locomotion Mutilations pain directly after mutilation Poorly carried out mutilations risk for neuroma's, beak deformations Not mutilating feather pecking, cannibalism 224

225 Appropriate behaviour procedures Lack of appropriate training for stockpersons and animal handlers broken bones Rough handling broken bones Inadequate handling facilities broken bones Difficult birth due to genetic reasons - Lack of facilities for sick animals feather pecking, cannibalism 9 Expression of Barren environments small poults are not able to find food and water social behaviours feather pecking, cannibalism Poor housing design and allocation of resources injuries cannibalism behavioural restrictions Insufficient environmental enrichments injuries Inappropriate light intensity (incl. natural lighting) feather pecking, cannibalism Inappropriate light cycle locomotion disorders Lack of contact with conspecifics - Reduced possibilities to move (lack of space / tied up / physical inability) feather pecking, cannibalism scratches behavioural restrictions 10 Expression of Reduced possibilities to move (lack of space / tied up / physical inability) feather pecking, cannibalism other behaviours scratches behavioural restrictions Barren environments small poults are not able to find food and water feather pecking, cannibalism Poor housing design and allocation of resources injuries cannibalism behavioural restrictions Insufficient environmental enrichments injuries Inappropriate light intensity (incl. natural lighting) feather pecking, cannibalism Inappropriate light cycle locomotion disorders Insufficient or inappropriate access to outdoor behavioural restrictions 11 Good humananimal Insufficient / inappropriate contact with humans fear Insufficient / inappropriate care of animals by humans disease relationship broken bones Inadequate clinical health monitoring disease prolonged pain 12 Positive - emotional state 225

226 28. ANNEX 9: HAZARD LIST GEESE Welfare principles Good feeding Good housing Welfare criteria Hazards 1 Absence of prolonged hunger 2 Absence of prolonged thirst 3 Comfort around resting 4 Thermal comfort Feed restriction Over-feeding Inappropriate diet Inappropriate feeders Too few feeding places Water restriction Inappropriate water quality and/of water temperature Inappropriate drinkers Too few drinking places Inappropriate enrichment Baren environment High temperatures and humidity Low temperatures and humidity Poor ventilation Consequences hunger/modified food intake/weights changes competition liver steatosis mortality difficulty in standing leg problem (splay leg or spraddle leg) modification of time budget hunger/modified food intake/weights changes competition hunger competition scratches hunger competition/struggling scratches thirst heat stress deshydratation thirst behvioural restrictions bad plumage conditions (feather preening) health and hygienic risks heat stress thirst competition feather pecking cannibalism panting reduced activity levels heat stress mortality balancing problem 226

227 Good health 5 Ease of movement 6 Absence of injuries 7 Absence of disease 8 Absence of pain induced by management procedures Poor housing design and allocation of resources Barren environment Lack of space High stocking density Inappropriate enrichment Poor housing design and allocation of resources Inappropriate enrichment Damaging behaviour to conspecifics Self mutilating behaviour Poor ventilation / air quality Inappropriate diet or water quality Inadequate biosecurity Poor precautions for parasites and pests Inadequate preventive medication, health management High risk for contact with wildlife Genetic selection for traits causing health risks mutilations (beak and claw trimming) Poorly carried out mutilations respiratory disease difficulty in balancing, slipping and falling skin irritation injuries behavioural restrictions / reduced activity leg problem (splay leg or spraddle leg) feather pecking / struggling scratches behavioural restrictions feather pecking / struggling scratches feather pecking / struggling scratches disease nervous and panic reactions --> mortality feather pecking / struggling injuries leg problem (splay leg or spraddle leg) foot pad dermatitis injuries injuries feather damage scratches respiratory diseases foot pad dermatitis diseases diseases worms parasitism diseases mortality caused by predators diseases pain bleeding beak deformation 227

228 Appropriate behaviour 9 Expression of social behaviours 10 Expression of other behaviours 11 Good humananimal relationship Not mutilating Lack of appropriate training for stockpersons and animal handlers Rough handling Inadequate handling facilities Difficult birth due to genetic reasons Lack of facilities for sick animals Barren environments Poor housing design and allocation of resources Insufficient environmental enrichments Inappropriate light intensity (incl. natural lighting) Inappropriate light cycle Lack of contact with conspecifics Reduced possibilities to move (lack of space / tied up / physical inability) Reduced possibilities to move (lack of space / tied up / physical inability) Barren environments Poor housing design and allocation of resources Insufficient environmental enrichments Inappropriate light intensity (incl. natural lighting) Inappropriate light cycle Insufficient or inappropriate access to outdoor (and deprivation of open water) Insufficient / inappropriate contact with humans Harvesting/gathering of feathers feather pecking broken bones broken bones broken bones diseases behavioural restrictions (foraging, feeding, feather care) feather pecking behavioural restrictions feather pecking/struggling leg problem foot pad dermatitis impaired visual development increased fearfulness behavioural restrictions feather pecking scratches feather pecking feather pecking feather pecking behavioural restrictions bad plumage conditions eyes dirtiness abnormal behaviour (head shaking, stereotypic feather preening) redirection of foraging behaviour heat stress aversive behaviour (during over feeding period) negative responses to handling: struggling, defence responses, escape attempts, vocalisations, defecation, biting, hissing fear reactions --> injuries and death by suffocation injuries high possibility of injuries fear (freezing/tonic immobility) 228

229 12 Positive emotional state Insufficient / inappropriate care of animals by humans Inadequate clinical health monitoring acute pain? : struggling, defence responses, escape attempts and vocalisations fear disease pain 229

230 29. ANNEX 10: HAZARD LIST DUCKS Welfare principles Good feeding Good housing Welfare criteria Hazards 1 Absence of prolonged hunger 2 Absence of prolonged thirst 3 Comfort around resting 4 Thermal comfort Feed restriction Over-feeding Inappropriate diet Inappropriate feeders Too few feeding places Water restriction Inappropriate water quality and/of water temperature Inappropriate drinkers Too few drinking places Inappropriate enrichment Barren environment High temperatures and humidity Consequences hunger competition liver steatosis mortality difficulty in standing leg problem (splay leg or spraddle leg) modification of time budget hunger competition hunger competition scratches hunger competition scratches thirst heat stress dehydration thirst behavioural restrictions bad plumage conditions (feather preening) health and hygienic risks heat stress thirst competition feather pecking cannibalism heat stress mortality Low temperatures and humidity Poor ventilation balancing problem respiratory disease 5 Ease of Poor housing design and allocation of resources difficulty in balancing, slipping and falling 230

231 Good health movement 6 Absence of injuries 7 Absence of disease 8 Absence of pain induced by management procedures Barren environment Lack of space High stocking density Inappropriate enrichment Poor housing design and allocation of resources Inappropriate enrichment Damaging behaviour to conspecifics Self mutilating behaviour Poor ventilation / air quality Inappropriate diet or water quality Inadequate biosecurity Poor precautions for parasites and pests Inadequate preventive medication, health management High risk for contact with wildlife Genetic selection for traits causing health risks mutilations (beak and claw trimming) Poorly carried out mutilations Not mutilating Lack of appropriate training for stockpersons and animal handlers skin irritation injuries behavioural restrictions leg problem (splay leg or spraddle leg) feather pecking scratches behavioural restrictions feather pecking scratches feather pecking scratches disease nervous and pain reactions --> mortality feather pecking injuries leg problem (splay leg or spraddle leg) foot pad dermatitis injuries injuries feather damage scratches respiratory diseases foot pad dermatitis diseases diseases worms parasitism diseases mortality caused by predators diseases pain bleeding amputation of toes beak deformation feather pecking broken bones 231

232 Appropriate behaviour 9 Expression of social behaviours 10 Expression of other behaviours 11 Good humananimal relationship 12 Positive emotional state Rough handling Inadequate handling facilities Difficult birth due to genetic reasons Lack of facilities for sick animals Barren environments Poor housing design and allocation of resources Insufficient environmental enrichments Inappropriate light intensity (incl. natural lighting) Inappropriate light cycle Lack of contact with conspecifics Reduced possibilities to move (lack of space / tied up / physical inability) Reduced possibilities to move (lack of space / tied up / physical inability) Barren environments Poor housing design and allocation of resources Insufficient environmental enrichments Inappropriate light intensity (incl. natural lighting) Inappropriate light cycle Insufficient or inappropriate access to outdoor (and deprivation of open water) Insufficient / inappropriate contact with humans Insufficient / inappropriate care of animals by humans Inadequate clinical health monitoring broken bones broken bones diseases behavioural restrictions (foraging, feeding, feather care) feather pecking behavioural restrictions feather pecking leg problem foot pad dermatitis impaired visual development increased fearfulness behavioural restrictions feather pecking scratches feather pecking feather pecking feather pecking behavioural restrictions (head dipping, preening, foraging, swimming ) bad plumage conditions eyes dirtiness abnormal behaviour (head shaking, stereotypic feather preening) redirection of foraging behaviour heat stress aversive behaviour (during over feeding period) fear reactions --> injuries and death by suffocation injuries fear disease pain 232

233 ANNEX 11: HAZARD LIST MEAT SHEEP IN EXTENSIVE CONDITIONS WQ criteria Husbandry aspect Hazard description Hazard especification Consequences Hunger Management Inadequate supply of food Low nutritional value of grazing Hunger Management Inadequate supply of food Low food availability Hunger Management Inadequate supply of food Lack of supplementation in hard periods Hunger Management Inadequate supply of food Too high stocking rate of animals per unit of area Hunger Management Inadequate supply of food Not adequate supplies of feed available to sheep in emergencies (winter storms or summer Hunger droughts) Management Inadequate supply of food Lack of knowledge of a technique for assessing condition scoring to know body reserves Hunger Management Inadequate supply of food Not adequate drying of sheep (leaving animals without eating or only drinking water) Hunger Thirst Housing Inadequate supply of water No access to a suitable water supply Thirst Management Inadequate supply of water Not adequate supplies of water available to sheep in emergencies (winter storms or summer Thirst droughts) Management Inadequate supply of water Not adequate water quality Thirst Comfort around resting Thermal comfort Ease of locomotion Housing Poor housing design Lack of shelter in adverse weather conditions Rest and sleep disruption Housing Poor housing design Lack of a comfortable lying area Rest and sleep disruption Housing Poor housing design Lack of shade areas in summer Rest and sleep disruption Management Not shearing Not shearing Thermal stress Management Inadequate shearing Shearing at an inappropriate time (wet conditions, severe cold or intense sunshine) Thermal stress Housing Poor housing design Lack of shelter in environmental impacts (blizzards, snow, precipitation and solar radiation) Thermal stress Management Poor acclimatization of animals Moving animals abruptly from valley to the mountains or from mountains to valley Thermal stress Management Poor genetic selection Selection of sheep not adapted to the conditions encountered in the field Displacement problems Housing Poor housing design Environmental impacts (blizzards, snowings, flooding) Displacement problems Management Not adequate hoof trimming Not adequate hoof trimming Displacement problems Housing Poor housing design Poor walking tracks Displacement problems Injuries Management Not adequate dogs Use of non well-trained dogs Bruising,wounds Management Inadequate shearing Use of inadequate shears Bruising,wounds Management Inadequate shearing Use of untrained shearers Bruising,wounds Management Inappropriate ear-tags Use of inappropriate ear-tags Bruising,wounds Housing Poor housing design No presence of escape terrain for allowing antipredator behaviour Bruising,wounds,fractures Housing Poor housing design Inadequate escape terrain (such as cliffs with high slopes) for allowing antipredator Bruising,wounds,fractures behaviour Housing Poor housing design Use of inadequate fences and hedges Bruising,wounds,fractures Management Poor stockmanship No regular inspection of the flock Lesions Housing Poor housing design Presence of wild predators or feral dogs Bruising,wounds,fractures Disease Management Not adequate hoof trimming Not adequate hoof trimming Lameness 233

234 Management Inadequate treatment practices No treatment of lame sheep Lameness Management Inadequate preventive medicine No prevention of external parasites Disease/Itchiness Management Inadequate preventive medicine No prevention of internal parasites Enteric diseases Management Inadequate treatment practices No treatment of external parasites Disease/Itchiness Management Inadequate treatment practices No treatment of internal parasites Enteric diseases Management Poor stockmanship No inspection during lambing Distocia problems Management Inadequate shearing No cleaning and disinfection of shearers and contractors Disease transmission Management Not adequate dogs Use of not dewormed dogs Disease transmission Management Poor stockmanship No regular inspection of the flock Disease transmission Management Poor acclimatization of animals Sheep transported to a new environment (not gradual grazing of toxic plants) Toxemia Management Poor stockmanship No removing of unfit sheep from the flock Disease transmission Management Poor stockmanship Not regular inspection of udder function Mastitis Housing Poor housing design Lack of shelter in environmental impacts (blizzards, snow) Respiratory disorders Management Poor stockmanship Not adequate drying of sheep Mastitis Management Inadequate supply of food Lack of certain nutrients (minerals, ) Disease Management Poor housing desing Presence of other herbivores that could spread diseases Disease Management Poor stockmanship Over explotation of landscape Disease transmission Management Poor stockmanship Inadequate management of the drinking points (overcrowding or dirty) Disease Pain Management Inadequate surgery procedure Practice of tail-docking without analgesia/anasthesia Pain Management Inadequate surgery procedure Practice of castration without analgesia/anasthesia Pain Management Poor stockmanship Lifting or dragging sheep by the fleece, tail, ears, horns or legs Pain Human-animal relationship Social behaviour Management Inadequate shearing Binding the legs of sheep while shearing Fear of humans Management Poor stockmanship Lifting or dragging sheep by the fleece, tail, ears, horns or legs Fear of humans Management Poor stockmanship Use of untrained shearers Fear of humans Management Inadequate group management Inadequate flock size for the shepherd Risk for lack of supervision Management Poor stockmanship No regular inspection of the flock Fear of humans Management Poor stockmanship Inappropriate human behaviour during vaccinations and treatments Fear of humans Management Poor stockmanship Rough personnel Fear of humans, mistreatment Management Poor group management No maintaining visual contact with other sheep Stress, frustation Management Poor group management No maintaining phisical contact with other sheep Stress, frustation Management Poor group management Segregation of sheep on the basis of age and sex Stress, frustation Management Poor group management Too high stocking rate of animals per unit of area Behavioural disruption Management Too high stocking density High competence for food Aggression Management Poor group management Moving of animals to different social groups Stress, frustation Housing Poor housing design No presence of escape terrain for allowing antipredator behaviour Behavioural disruption Housing Poor housing design Inadequate escape terrain (such as cliffs with high slopes) for allowing antipredator Behavioural disruption behaviour Positive Management Not adequate dogs Use of non well-trained dogs Bruising, wounds 234

235 emotional state Management Inadequate group management No maintaining visual contact with other sheep Frustration, lack of social behaviour Management Inadequate group management No maintaining phisical contact with other sheep Frustration, lack of social behaviour Housing Poor housing design Presence of wild predators or feral dogs Bruising, wounds Management Poor stockmanship Rough personnel Fear of humans Management Poor housing design Presence of hunters in the area Fear of humans 235

236 30. ANNEX 12: HAZARD LIST GOATS IN SEMI-INTENSIVE SYSTEMS WQ criteria Husbandry aspect Hazard description Hazard Consequences Hunger Management Food availability Poor feed quality Hunger Management Food availability Underfeeding Hunger Housing Food availability Inadequate ratio feeders/number of animals Hunger Management Food availability Too high stocking rate of animals per unit of area (pasture) Hunger Management Food availability Lack of knowledge of a technique for assessing condition scoring to know body reserves Hunger Management Food availability Not adequate drying of goats (leaving animals without eating or only drinking water) Hunger Management Food availability Inadequate feeding schedule Hunger Thirst Housing Drinker availability Insufficient access to water Thirst Management Drinker availability Not adequate water quality Thirst Comfort around resting Thermal comfort Ease of locomotion Housing Housing design Lack of shelter in adverse weather conditions (pasture) Rest and sleep disruption Housing Housing design Lack of a comfortable lying area (pasture) Rest and sleep disruption Housing Housing design Lack of shade areas in summer (pasture) Rest and sleep disruption Housing Housing design Inadequate floor Rest and sleep disruption Management Lying place No bedding material when necessary Rest and sleep disruption Management Stocking density Too high stocking density Rest and sleep disruption Housing Housing design Inadequate ventilation, inappropriate airflow, airspeed Rest and sleep disruption Housing Housing design Lack of shelter in environmental impacts (blizzards, snow, precipitation and solar radiation) Thermal stress (pasture) Housing Housing design Inadequate ventilation, inappropriate airflow, airspeed Thermal stress Management Lying place No bedding material when necessary Thermal stress Management Lying place Inadequate bedding material Thermal stress Housing Housing design Environmental impacts (blizzards, snowings, flooding) (pasture) Thermal stress Housing Housing design Inappropriate temperature, humidity Thermal stress Management Stocking density Too high stocking density Thermal stress Management Management practices Not adequate hoof trimming Locomotion problems Housing Housing design Poor walking tracks (pasture) Locomotion problems Management Dogs Use of non well-trained dogs Locomotion problems Housing Housing design Inadequate floor Locomotion problems Management Stocking density Too high stocking density Locomotion problems Injuries Housing Housing design Inadequate handling facilities Bruising,wounds Management Management practices Use of inappropiate ear-tags Bruising,wounds Housing Housing design No presence of escape terrain for allowing antipredator behaviour (pasture) Bruising,wounds,fractures Housing Housing design Use of inadequate fences and hedges (pasture) Bruising,wounds,fractures Management Handlers No regular inspection of the flock Lesions Housing Housing design Presence of wild predators or feral dogs (pasture) Bruising,wounds,fractures 236

237 Management Dogs Use of non well-trained dogs Bruising,wounds Disease Management Management practices Not adequate hoof trimming Lameness Management Treatment practices No treatment of lame goats Lameness Management Preventive medicine Inadequate clinical health monitoring Disease Management Preventive medicine Inadequate preventive medicine, herd-health management Disease Housing Air quality Poor air quality Respiratory disorders Housing Air quality Inadequate ventilation, inappropriate airflow, airspeed Respiratory disorders Management Food availability Poor feed quality Enteric disorders Management Dogs Use of not dewormed dogs Disease transmission Management Handlers No regular inspection of the flock Disease transmission Management Food availability Inadequate feeding schedule Enteric disorders Management Handlers No removing of unfit goats from the flock Disease transmission Management Handlers Not regular inspection of udder function Mastitis Housing Housing design Lack of shelter in environmental impacts (blizzards, snow, hot sunny days) (pasture) Respiratory disorders Management Handlers Not adequate drying of sheep Mastitis Management Food availability Lack of certain nutrients (minerals, ) Disease Management Handlers Over explotation of landscape (pasture) Disease transmission Management Management practices Poor calving conditions Dystocia Management Handlers Poor management of the pastures (parasites present, crossing diseases fromother species ) Disease transmission Housing Housing design Inadequate milking equipment Disease transmission Pain Management Handlers Lifting or dragging goats by the tail, ears, horns or legs Pain Management Surgery practices Disbudding without anaesthesia/analgesia Pain Housing Housing design Inadequate milking equipment Pain Housing Housing design Inadequate handling facilities Pain Human-animal relationship Social behaviour Other behaviour Management Handlers Lifting or dragging goats by the tail, ears, horns or legs Fear of humans Management Handlers No regular inspection of the flock Fear of humans Management Handlers Inappropriate human behaviour during vaccinations and treatments Fear of humans, mistreatment Management Handlers Rough personnel Fear of humans, mistreatment Management Group management Introduction of new animals in the group Aggression, stress, frustation Management Group management Too high stocking rate of animals per unit of area (pasture) Aggression Management Stocking density Too high stocking density Aggression Management Group management Moving of animals to different social groups (regrouping) Aggression, stress, frustation Management Group management Isolation of individuals Stress, frustation Housing Housing design No presence of escape terrain for allowing antipredator behaviour Behavioural disruption Housing Housing design Inadequate escape terrain (such as cliffs with high slopes) for allowing antipredator Behavioural disruption behaviour Management Light duration Too short period of light Inability to carry out some normal perception behaviour 237

238 Positive emotional state Housing Housing design Inadequate milking equipment Annoyance, fear Housing Housing design Inadequate handling facilities Annoyance, fear Housing Housing design Presence of wild predators or feral dogs (pasture) Annoyance, fear Management Dogs Presence of bitting dogs or untrained dogs Annoyance, fear Management Handlers Inappropriate human behaviour during vaccinations and treatments Annoyance, fear Management Handlers Rough personnel Annoyance, fear 238

239 TECHNICAL REPORT submitted to EFSA Animal welfare risk assessment guidelines on housing and management (EFSA Housing Risk) 35 Workpackage 3 (WP3) - Monitoring points to assess animal welfare at farm level Prepared by Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) 35 (Question No EFSA-Q ). Accepted for Publication on 15 December 2010

240 Table of Contents Background Terms of reference Acknowledgements Institutes involved Monitoring points Text in call Original text in Project description Definition and use of monitoring points Selection of monitoring points Examples

241 Background One of the tasks of the European Food Safety Authority is to promote and coordinate the development of harmonised risk assessment (RA) methodologies in the fields of food and feed safety, nutrition, plant health, plant protection, animal health and animal welfare. Current farming systems found in Europe were developed when there was a need for large quantities of inexpensive food after the wartime shortage and were designed before animal welfare became a major concern. For instance, one of the main findings given by the Eurobarometer survey 36 (EC, 2005) is that over 50% of consumers from across the EU25 are concerned that levels of farm animal welfare are not adequate. To promote high animal welfare standards in current farming systems in relation to housing and management, a clear knowledge of the main risks for poor animal welfare is required. Good animal welfare risk assessment can only be carried out if the risk for poor animal welfare are identified and quantified. Due to the multidimensional nature of animal welfare, housing and management systems shall be compared in view of different welfare indicators. For each welfare indicator one or more hazards can be identified that can negatively influence the welfare of the animals. On the other hand good monitoring can prevent the main hazards from occurring and in that way can safeguard animal welfare. Monitoring points are thus physical points where effective actions can be taken by the risk manager to prevent a poor animal welfare. Terms of reference A self mandate was launched by EFSA in September 2007 (EFSA-Q ) to develop the Risk Assessment Guidelines for Animal Welfare, where three main animal welfare issues were identified, namely: Stunning and Killing, Transport, Housing and Management. A harmonised definition of Animal Welfare, including the relationship with Animal Disease, should be also addressed in the framework of this self mandate. The main animal welfare issues (Stunning and Killing, Transport, Housing and Management) are dealt with separately. The deliverables from the different projects will be assembled and evaluated in order to produce the final Risk Assessment Guidelines on Animal Welfare, under the EFSA self mandate framework. In relation to the housing and management of animals bred or kept for production, and in addition to the Council Directive 98/58/EC 37 of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, specific legislation exists laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves 38, pigs 39 and laying hens 40, improving the enforcement of high animal welfare standards in the European Union

242 The EFSA AHAW Panel has also issued several Scientific Opinions related to the risks of poor welfare in intensive calf farming systems 41, welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor types 42, animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and husbandry 43, animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets 44, and welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens 45. Acknowledgements This contract/grant was awarded by EFSA to: Contractor/Beneficiary: Wageningen UR Livestock Research, (ASG, coordinator) (formerly: ASG Veehouderij b.v.) Co-beneficiaries: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA) Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) Contract/grant title: Contract/grant number: Project to develop Animal Risk Assessment Guidelines on housing and Management EFSA/AHAW/2009/01 Institutes involved PARTNERS ASG Veehouderij bv (ASG) - Netherlands - (co-ordinator) Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) - Sweden Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA) - Spain Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) - Germany SUBCONTRACTORS Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) - Spain Vet School of Lyon (VSL) - France Institute of Veterinary Biomedicine (IVB) - Macedonia Royal Veterinary College (RVC) - UK

243 MONITORING POINTS 31. Text in call Essential requirements of the project The Hazard Characterisation shall describe and examine the impact of the above mentioned hazards. The assessment of animal welfare at farm level shall be based on scientific measures. Therefore, applicant shall propose a list of monitoring points to assess animal welfare for species and animal categories, selected according to animal-based and resources-based criteria. 32. Original text in Project description Objective Development of a list of monitoring points to asses animal welfare at farm level and description of the appropriate scientific measures (animal based or resources based) for the assessment of animal welfare on farm and extrapolation from there to RA to a regional and European level. Describe in detail how the project provides significant and sustainable impact and added value to the existing knowledge For the development of a list of monitoring points to assess animal welfare at farm level, the methodology developed in the project will be used. For a range of species monitoring protocols were designed to assess animal welfare. These protocols were as much as possible build up from animal based measures (e.g. bodily condition, injuries, fear). By doing so, the assessment system is rather independent of the housing and management systems. Where these were not available resource based measures (e.g. space, temperature) and management based (e.g. handling, record keeping) measures were used. Although these protocols are not focussed on risk assessment, they do provide good insight in the various aspects of animal welfare and how these are affected. Therefore they are a good and scientifically sound basis for the development of a list of monitoring points and description of the appropriate scientific measures (animal based or resources based) for the assessment of animal welfare on farm and extrapolation from there to RA. From the monitoring on farm level an extrapolation will be made to regional and European level. Work package 3: Listing of monitoring points to assess animal welfare Duration and timing: 1 month (M5) 243

244 Participating partners: ASG, SLU, IRTA The list of monitoring points will consider the species, animal category and housing and management systems. The framework for the collection of monitoring points for cattle, pigs, laying hens and broilers will be the welfare assessment protocols of the Welfare Quality project. For the other species where the welfare protocols have not yet been developed (sheep, goats, turkeys, ducks and geese) previous AHAW and SCAHAW opinions and other scientific publications will be considered. In case no published scientific information is available, expert opinion will be used or, if this does not provide sufficient information, it will be indicated that information is not available. Assessment points can be animal based or resource based. According to the Welfare Quality project, animal based criteria give more direct information on welfare of the animals, but they are not always easy to collect and in several situations no animal based monitoring points are available. The list with monitoring points therefore will not be uniform and will sometimes deal with animal based points and sometimes with resource base points. The quality of the lists of monitoring points will differ between species. Species that were covered by the Welfare Quality project will have more thoroughly based lists compared to the other species; the less information available, the less specific the list. In principle, presented welfare monitoring points should be possible to use independently of the housing or management situation and independently of the regional differences 46. Deliverables: A list with monitoring points per species, with a clear declaration of the quality of each list. 33. Definition and use of monitoring points There is no clear definition of monitoring points in the project description, nor in earlier work on animal welfare risk assessment. Because monitoring points in this project are intended to be linked with risk assessment, the definition should be based on welfare risks rather than on welfare status. The following definition is chosen: A monitoring point is a point in space and time at which the animals exposure to a hazard can be assessed and monitored, allowing the implementation of corrective actions to reduce or eliminate the exposure to the hazard. Monitoring points are thus physical points where effective actions can be taken by the risk manager to prevent a poor animal welfare. In the context of animal housing and management, monitoring points on the animal operation level appear logical for promoting animal welfare in an individual group, herd or flock. However, information from farm-level monitoring points can be aggregated for actions on higher hierarchical levels, such as a region or a country. 46 Clarification on use of WQ data: the information used from the Welfare Quality project will be publically available as of 8 th October We will only use the published information. 244

245 34. Selection of monitoring points Points can be defined from an animal-based or resource-based perspective. Due to the focus on preventive actions rather than welfare status assessment, resource-based measures are likely to play a more important role. To be useful, monitoring points should be related to high animal welfare risks, i.e. important hazards and important adverse effects. Furthermore, they should be influential when taking actions to reduce these risks. Hence, the selection of monitoring points will rely on results from preceding risk assessment. Furthermore, the selection of monitoring points must be based on the purpose of the monitoring. Consequently, it is not meaningful to produce a general list of monitoring points for a given species or husbandry system. To select and define monitoring points in relation to specific risks, the following aspects need consideration: 1. The scope of the monitoring, which will influence e.g. the minimum level of dissolution and reliability of information required. 2. The type of risk issue. A narrow issue speaks for a more focused monitoring than a broader issue, probably involving fewer hazards and requiring fewer monitoring points. 3. The establishment of a list of relevant hazards. 4. The elaboration of a monitoring scheme to generate valid information on hazard exposure. Recording methodology must be described in detail, including relevant locations in the husbandry system, a recording scheme with suitable time intervals, and who will carry out the recordings. 5. Manipulation of collected data needed to get useful information. 6. Practical and financial constraints. 35. Examples Lameness in cattle Monitoring aims to prevent lameness in cows on a large dairy operation. Earlier risk assessments have identified concrete flooring in walkways and inferior claw trimming routines as important hazards and the farm manager judges these to be the most important for preventive actions. Other hazards and monitoring points could also be considered. In the case of the walkway design, a relevant monitoring point would be during the planning of the building. In countries where schemes exist for compulsory or voluntary pre-testing of housing designs from an animal welfare perspective, the monitoring and preventive actions should be done once in connection with the pre-testing procedure. Claw trimming is performed with a few months intervals, either regularly with defined time intervals or more irregularly and when needed. Relevant monitoring points would include recordings of the trimming intervals in individual animals, the timing of trimming in relation to e.g. calving, and the trimming equipment and technique applied. These recordings can be done when trimming is carried out. Data need to be manipulated and summarized over time to arrive at useful figures. Tail-biting in fattening pigs 245

246 Monitoring might aim to produce information on feeder space and the use of straw on European pig farms as a basis for legislative actions to prevent tail-biting in the EU. In this case, key hazards are insufficient available feeder space and insufficient amounts of straw. Relevant monitoring points might be measurements of feeder space (cm per pig) and records on the use of straw as litter on a representative sample of European pig farms. Both feeder space and amount of straw used could be recorded through inspections, e.g. in connection with farm visits by production advisers or specially trained personnel. Alternatively, the amount of straw could be derived indirectly from records of straw purchase, given that straw is not produced on farm. 246

247 TECHNICAL REPORT submitted to EFSA Animal welfare risk assessment guidelines on housing and management (EFSA Housing Risk) 47 Workpackage 4 (WP4) - Development of risk assessment methodology for housing and management Prepared by Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) 47 (Question No EFSA-Q ). Accepted for Publication on 15 December

248 Table of Contents Background Terms of reference Acknowledgements Institutes involved Introduction Risk Assessment overview Risk Assessment methodology Hazard identification Hazard characterisation Exposure Assessment Risk characterisation Input data Indices for Welfare Selection criteria Data availability Outstanding questions Linearity in severity scores Different life stages Definition of the population used Chain of events Use of expert opinion Interactions Uncertainty and Variability Death as an endpoint How to deal with very rare events Benefits in risk assessment Validation of the model Complex method vs Simple method References

249 Background One of the tasks of the European Food Safety Authority is to promote and coordinate the development of harmonised risk assessment (RA) methodologies in the fields of food and feed safety, nutrition, plant health, plant protection, animal health and animal welfare. Current farming systems found in Europe were developed when there was a need for large quantities of inexpensive food after the wartime shortage and were designed before animal welfare became a major concern. For instance, one of the main findings given by the Eurobarometer survey 48 (EC, 2005) is that over 50% of consumers from across the EU25 are concerned that levels of farm animal welfare are not adequate. To promote high animal welfare standards in current farming systems in relation to housing and management, a clear knowledge of the main risks for poor animal welfare is required. Good animal welfare risk assessment can only be carried out if the risk for poor animal welfare are identified and quantified. Due to the multidimensional nature of animal welfare, housing and management systems shall be compared in view of different welfare indicators. The problem in animal welfare risk assessment is that often good objective data are missing, there is little or no literature about animal welfare risk assessment, there are ethical discussions about the nature of good welfare and the topic needs a specific methodology, dealing with expert opinions and discussing problems like interactions, variability and uncertainty. Terms of reference A self mandate was launched by EFSA in September 2007 (EFSA-Q ) to develop the Risk Assessment Guidelines for Animal Welfare, where three main animal welfare issues were identified, namely: Stunning and Killing, Transport, Housing and Management. A harmonised definition of Animal Welfare, including the relationship with Animal Disease, should be also addressed in the framework of this self mandate. The main animal welfare issues (Stunning and Killing, Transport, Housing and Management) are dealt with separately. The deliverables from the different projects will be assembled and evaluated in order to produce the final Risk Assessment Guidelines on Animal Welfare, under the EFSA self mandate framework. In relation to the housing and management of animals bred or kept for production, and in addition to the Council Directive 98/58/EC 49 of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, specific legislation exists laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves 50, pigs 51 and laying hens 52, improving the enforcement of high animal welfare standards in the European Union. The EFSA AHAW Panel has also issued several Scientific Opinions related to the risks of poor welfare in intensive calf farming systems 53, welfare of weaners and rearing pigs: effects of different space allowances and floor types 54, animal health and welfare in fattening pigs in relation to housing and

250 husbandry 55, animal health and welfare aspects of different housing and husbandry systems for adult breeding boars, pregnant, farrowing sows and unweaned piglets 56, and welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens 57 and in management systems for fish raised in aquaculture.. Acknowledgements This contract/grant was awarded by EFSA to: Contractor/Beneficiary: Wageningen UR Livestock Research, (ASG, coordinator) (formerly: ASG Veehouderij b.v.) Co-beneficiaries: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA) Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) Contract/grant title: Contract/grant number: Project to develop Animal Risk Assessment Guidelines on housing and Management EFSA/AHAW/2009/01 Institutes involved PARTNERS ASG Veehouderij bv (ASG) - Netherlands - (co-ordinator) Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) - Sweden Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA) - Spain Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR) - Germany SUBCONTRACTORS Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) - Spain Vet School of Lyon (VSL) - France Institute of Veterinary Biomedicine (IVB) - Macedonia Royal Veterinary College (RVC) - UK

251 36. Introduction In order to properly address animal welfare issues the risks of poor welfare need to be assessed in a scientific transparent way. In terms of transparency and use of available scientific data the principles of risk assessment (RA) are probably well suited for this area. In the following part, RA in welfare will be reviewed and the hitherto used methods described. Up to now, there are no generally applicable guidelines available. To approach the subject and summarize the state of art an opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on the Framework for EFSA AHAW Risk Assessment (EFSA 2007a) was formulated. It does however, not contain any methodological details. A further EFSA opinion deals with good practice conducting scientific assessment in animal health using modelling (EFSA 2009), which may also give a direction for an interdisciplinary work using modelling methods on animal welfare issues, but again does not discuss the methods. Due to the difficulties in addressing animal welfare questions such as obtaining good quantitative measures as well as ethical discussions about the nature of good welfare, open questions remain which will be discussed in this document. 37. Risk Assessment overview Risk Assessment in Life Sciences are often based on the guidelines published by the Codex Alimentarius commission for questions of microbiological food safety (Codex Alimentarius, 1999) and OIE on import risk analysis, when importing live animals and their products (OIE, 2004 and 2004 b). Even though these two approaches differ in their starting points and in some detail, they are still similar enough to use the same approach. Risk assessment is a scientifically based process that seeks to estimate the likelihood and consequences of an adverse event, which is referred to as a hazard. It generally consists of the following steps: i) hazard identification, ii) hazard characterisation, iii) exposure assessment and iv) risk characterisation. The final objective is to describe each step in a transparent way and provide a quantitative or qualitative statement of the associated risk. Different models can be used for risk assessments, such as qualitative, semi-quantitative and quantitative approaches. Qualitative models describe verbally the risk. The expression of the overall risk probabilities poses a specific challenge, since it has to be ensured that all the parties concerned risk assessor, risk managers - have the same understanding of the terms such as for example serious or moderate risk. Definitions of these qualitative terms may be useful and appropriate. A quantitative risk assessment uses quantitative information and can be either deterministic or stochastic. Quantitative models can be more transparent because of the numerical format and allow simulations and expressions of distributions of the input variables - their ranges- and risk estimates, but may sometimes give a wrong impression of the precision without a helpful discussion of the model uncertainties (EFSA 2009). Depending on the information available and the specific question it may be also useful to express information using scores, i.e. on a semi-quantitative scale. 251

252 Quantitative Risk Assessment An assessment that provides numerical expressions of risk and an indication of the attendant uncertainties. Qualitative Risk Assessment An assessment based on data which, while forming an inadequate basis for numerical risk estimations, nevertheless, when conditioned by prior expert knowledge and identification of attendant uncertainties, permits risk ranking or separation into descriptive categories of risk. However, the type of risk assessment depends critically on the risk question asked. This cannot be underlined strongly enough. A risk question which deals with the comparison of several husbandry forms is different to asking a specific question about the animal welfare consequences of the introduction of a new disease, or a risk question dealing with just one type of management methods and the risk for one welfare criterion such as absence of hunger, pain etc. Different approaches may be chosen to tackle these questions. If the risk question is too broad and general, it may need considerable time for the experts involved for the assessment, whereas that time may not be at hand. Also experts may vary in their level of expertise within the risk question asked which may cause a problem (see section expert opinion). Finally, the risk question may involve a target population which is too heterogenic to allow for one assessment and the population in question may need to be subdivided to allow for a sensible risk assessment. For animal welfare risk assessment in husbandry, the following different questions may be of importance: 1. Identification of high-risk elements in animal husbandry on a European or national level 2. Identification of major hazards for a specific aspect of AW (e.g. pain, fear, certain behaviour 3. Identification of high-risk operation (sites) of animal production These may require different methods of RA. This needs to be established before a particular RA is started. 38. Risk Assessment methodology At first, animal welfare risk assessments described the risk qualitatively in text: they carried out a qualitative risk assessment in a more or less systematic way and without quantifying it. In the late 1990s a more quantitative approach was used by Bartussek (1999) who developed an animal needs index (ANI). Bracke reviewed the problems involved in trying to develop an 252

253 overall animal welfare assessment based on existing approaches to animal welfare assessment, but he did not find in the literature an already established method (Bracke et al., 1999a). He notes studies have generally stopped short of putting theory to practice. (Bracke 1999b Overall animal welfare review Part 2). A further review of animal welfare risk assessment can be found in Basic Information for the development of the animal welfare risk assessment guidelines (EFSA/AHAW/2006/01). In a series of papers in Animal Welfare 2003 (vol 12), authors described the aims of animal risk assessment and their request for a sound methodology in animal risk assessment. The application of more formal and more quantitative risk assessment for animal welfare is a relatively new area. It has been employed in a limited number of studies, also in the opinions of the EFSA Animal Health Animal Welfare (AHAW) Panel, dealing with welfare questions. A quick overview over different methods will be given in the following. In previous publication and reports, there has been a more detailed description of particular methods, therefore, these methods will be only illustrated briefly, and reference made to the specific report by the AHAW Panel For this project a literature research was carried out looking at 24 databases with the search words animal welfare, animal protection, animal housing, husbandry, risk assessment, quantitative methods which did not yield many publications with specific methods readily applicable to this area, with the exception of publications of Bracke and co-workers. Bracke employs a semantic model to analyse overall welfare assessment in housing of sows and to assess enrichment material for pigs (2002, 2008). He uses a relational data base to collect and organize information on attributes describing the housing and management systems, which he links to the welfare, in this respect the 11 needs of the animals and to scientific - semantic - statements in the database. He then uses weighting categories which classify welfare performance criteria using criteria of intensity, duration and incidence. The outcome gives for instance a ranking of the different housing system for which he also uses reference housing system, but he does score according to expert opinion and to scientific statements. He does not use an overall index or quantitative measurement for welfare. The data entered into the model are nominal data from expert opinion. While the model considers several parameters to describe any housing and welfare situation in order to calculate the scores, it may be difficult to follow all the detail for a non-specialist. The impact of different housing systems on health and welfare of grower and finisher pigs (Cagienard et al., 2005) was evaluated with logistic regression accounting for group effect using generalised estimation equation (GEE). However, the authors concentrated on a comparison between animal friendly and traditional farms using mainly health parameters which were scored after clinical examination, and, thus, not dealing with the wider aspects of welfare issues. A different method was used by Angus and co-workers (2005) who applied a conjoint analysis to determine the importance of factors that affected on-farm welfare of the dairy cow. This was used for an on-farm assessment, by expert opinion through filling in a questionnaire. No continuous quantitative data were used here. 253

254 EFSA risk assessment work on animal welfare follows the methodology proposed by the Codex Alimentarius (WHO 1999). Thus, a risk in animal welfare would be the result of the probability of a negative animal welfare effect (i.e. the adverse effect) and the severity of the adverse effect, consequential to the exposure to a hazard(s). The probability or likelihood of the hazard at a population level can also be taken into account (i.e. the proportion of the population which is exposed). The degree of confidence in the final estimation of risk would depend on the variability, uncertainty, and assumptions identified and integrated in the different risk assessment steps. The method developed for the EFSA aims at integrating more quantitative measures. Expert opinion has largely been used, measured data are not often available (e.g. the frequency of exposure and the likelihood of an individual being affected). These data could be included as distributions with max, min and mean or median values and modelled accordingly. In general mandates have been dealing with the comparison of different methods, regarding husbandry, transport or killing methods in order to inform legislators. For this a ranking of the different types of husbandry, transport or killing has been required. These methods have been detailed in these opinions and previous reports on RA in transport (TRAW) and killing and stunning (WRAPSTUN) and can be consulted in more detail here. In general the risk assessment was carried out according to 4 steps in Codex Alimentarius and these are: Hazard identification The aim of this step is to identify causes or factors that affect animals needs and that have a potential to change the animals welfare. Although potentially both negative and positive changes could be accessed, only negative impacts were considered so far in risk assessment. For a discussion on risk-benefit see further below. These factors may also more broadly be described as conditions that may have a direct impact on the welfare and health of the animal studied. Subsequently, hazard (a detrimental factor) identification (e.g. clinical signs and physiological changes), its character, and the consequences of it occurring, are all important issues to be taken into account when making a Risk Assessment and be described in a table as done in WP Hazard characterisation The objectives of the hazard characterisation are: to examine and describe the consequences of an exposure to one or several hazards; and to assess the relationship between the level of the hazard in terms of frequency and duration and the likelihood and magnitude of the adverse effect. The severity of adverse effect is scored according to a definition worked out before the risk assessment was carried out. They were scored according to scientific evidence of the level of physiological and behavioural responses, but could be replaced with other measures such a composite indexes to describe the state of welfare of the animal. 254

255 Table 1. Severity of adverse effect Evaluation Score Explanation Negligible 0 No pain, malaise, frustration, fear or anxiety as evidenced by measures of the normal range of behavioural observations, physiological measures and clinical signs for >95% of the species or strain/breed Mild 1 Minor changes from normality and indicative of pain, malaise, fear or anxiety Moderate 2 Moderate changes from normality and indicative of pain, malaise, fear or anxiety Substantial 3 Substantial changes from normality and indicative of pain, malaise, fear or anxiety. Severe 4 Extreme changes from normality and indicative of pain, malaise, fear or anxiety, that if persist would be incompatible with life. If there were a continuous measure, the severity could be described as a particular distribution. The duration of the adverse effects, i.e. the consequences of the hazard, is scored on a 0 to 100% scale considering the rest of the life of the animal and not just the particular life stage mentioned. A hazard is not only described by the magnitude of its adverse effect, but also by the likelihood of the adverse effect occurring which equates to the proportion of the population affected, this also could be described on a continuous scale and has been done in the modelling of the pig welfare risk assessment. Table 2. Likelihood of adverse effect occurring (i.e. proportion of population affected) Evaluation Score Explanation Negligible 0 The event would almost certainly not occur Extremely low 1 The event would be extremely unlikely to occur Very low 2 The event would be very unlikely to occur Low 3 The event would be unlikely to occur Moderate 4 The event would occur with an even probability High 5 The event would be very likely to occur 255

256 The uncertainty value is an indication of the type of information available, whether there are different studies with differing conclusions, but also whether the scientific information has been published or not. The uncertainty value (low, medium and high) gives an estimate of how much confidence one has in the information. This could be even more detailed if there were a more specific description of the different levels. An uncertainty score was given for each factor considered for transparency reasons, to clearly mark the gaps of knowledge. Table 3. Uncertainty Evaluation Score Explanation Low 1 Solid and complete data available: strong evidence in multiple references with most authors coming to the same conclusions (e.g. in a meta-analysis). Medium 2 Some or only incomplete data available: evidence provided in small number of references; authors conclusions vary. Solid and complete data available from other species which can be extrapolated to the species considered. High 3 Scarce or no data available: evidence provided in unpublished reports, or based on observation or personal communications; authors conclusions vary considerably Exposure Assessment Exposure assessment is the qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative evaluation of the probability of a specific scenario of exposure. The scenario here takes into account the frequency and duration of exposure to one or several hazards during the life stage of the animal. First of all the frequency of exposure was considered (table 4), that is, how often a particular hazard would be encountered. Table 4. Frequency of exposure Evaluation Score Explanation Negligible 0 The exposure would almost certainly not occur Extremely low 1 The exposure would be extremely unlikely to occur Very low 2 The exposure would be very unlikely to occur Low 3 The exposure would be unlikely to occur Moderate 4 The exposure would occur with an even probability High 5 The exposure would be very likely to occur 256

257 The duration of the hazard for a given life stage is described, that is, for how long the hazard would occur and for how long it would last. A hazard could last for a long time or only for a very short time, such as a predator s attack. The duration of the hazard during a life stage will be indicated on a value from 0% to 100%. There is still a debate about the usefulness of duration of exposure in the analysis, since this may also be covered implicitly by the frequency of exposure. Comparison with and without the last mentioned parameter using well known systems, where the risk factors are well studied and the ranking is clear could be used as a gold standard and could help to clarify the inclusion of this parameter. For all those parameters experts were either asked to score themselves or extract the information from literature Risk characterisation Risk characterisation integrates hazard characterisation and exposure assessment into a risk score. This step aims to estimate the likelihood of occurrence of the adverse effect in a specific production system at a specific life stage of the animal. It aims to give information to the risk manager to evaluate a specific situation regarding maximising good welfare. The risk estimate was calculated for each hazard, and expresses its animal welfare burden in the considered population. Risk score = (severity of adverse effect)*(duration of the adverse effects) *(likelihood of adverse effect)* (frequency of hazard)*(duration of hazard) This can be done with the scores in a semi-quantitative way or using distributions of each parameter in a more quantitative may (EFSA, 2007a) and then modelling the distribution of the individual parameters for instance in a program such If scores - rather than distributions of frequency of hazard, severity and likelihood of effect are used, these were standardized to give even weighting to the scores (i.e. frequency of hazard / number of different categories for scoring). Duration of hazard and duration of effect were divided by 100. Eventually, the risk score was multiplied by 100 to make it easier to read. If exact quantitative figures are available for exposure, likelihood of adverse effect and durations, there still remains the problem of quantification of the severity of the adverse welfare effects. At present this parameter is mainly based on expert opinion. As a consequence, usually a semi-quantitative risk assessment has been carried out. The final result of the described methodology does not give an absolute numerical estimate of the risk attributed to certain hazards. However, the output can be used to rank the problems and designate areas of concern, as well as provide guidance for future research. 257

258 Uncertainty scores could not be used in the risk estimate directly but are indicated in the final column to give an idea of the overall certainty of the data. Uncertainty scores for magnitude of the effect and exposure are combined as shown below. Table 5. Combined uncertainty scores Uncertainty ( exposure assessment ) High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) Uncertainty (Hazard characterization) High (3) High (3) High (3) High (3) Medium (2) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (2) Low (1) High (3) Medium (2) Low (1) Since methods vary according to the question, the methodology applied to the animal welfare risk assessment for stunning and killing has been described in the relevant EFSA publications as well as in the Technical Report Project to develop Animal Welfare Risk Assessment Guidelines on Stunning and Killing. 39. Input data All risk assessment is dependent on the quality of input data garbage in garbage out. This applies for qualitative and quantitative risk assessment. Qualitative risk assessment needs to be transparently explained and the descriptors clearly defined, for instance what a serious risk is. Appropriate data for quantitative risk assessment are often lacking even though there are a lot of studies dealing with animal welfare in different systems. There is a recognized need to explain to welfare scientist the type of data required for risk assessment. Maxima and minima of the different parameters are needed as well as measures of centre (mean, median) for example of the frequency of exposure and the possible type of distribution. This allows the usage of distributions for the modelling of the risk assessment. The most important problem in animal welfare risk assessment is a measure to quantify the adverse effect of a given hazards. Here welfare risk assessment unlike other areas of risk assessment has been highly dependent on expert opinion. If a quantitative measure could be obtained, modelling of the risk assessment would be much easier as different techniques could be employed Indices for Welfare Animal welfare is a composite concept which does not lend itself to assessment by the measurement of any single parameter. Indices of poor or good animal welfare have been 258

259 developed and applied in practice. As part of the Welfare Quality project, protocols were developed (based on twelve criteria of good welfare) for the assessment of welfare status of groups of farm animals in practice. This is described in the WP2 report of the Housing Risk project. Different studies have used different indices to study animal welfare (e.g. Scott et al, 2003). What is needed to employ advance modelling techniques is to have agreement by welfare scientists on the type of indices and the relevant information required for those. To some extend, the outcome of the risk assessment is dependent on the definition of animal welfare. Any definition used and the subsequent composition of the welfare index (or indices) deployed, will determine the outcome of the risk assessment process. They therefore have to be made transparent from the start Selection criteria Prior to quantitative risk assessment, data must be collected for each of the measured factors identified for inclusion in the assessment. In most cases of welfare risk assessment, this will include data on hazard intensity, duration of exposure to the hazard, duration of experience of the consequence, and the hazard prevalence. Formally, this data should be collected and assimilated using a systematic review process, followed by meta-analysis. The academic gold standard for systematic reviews is the Cochrane process, a rigorous procedure where the methods for data collection are peer-reviewed and compared with a set of standards for the process ( Most systematic reviews in welfare risk assessment do not follow the Cochrane group procedure, perhaps for two main reasons: (i) systematic reviews are a relatively new and underused method for data collection in animal welfare. Researchers may be unaware of the procedure; (ii) The Cochrane gold standard is so rigorous that many systematic reviews following this procedure find that few, if any, peer-reviewed papers pass the many quality assurance and other filters used as inclusion criteria. If the Cochrane process is not used, then data collected by an alternative systematic review process needs to be qualified by its reliability. Reliability can be measured in a number of different ways, for example: the quantity of papers published showing the same result, the quality of the experimental design and statistical analysis (as deduced from the methods description), the sample size the result is based on and the power of the study. However, it should be noted that scoring a paper s reliability based on the number of published papers that corroborate the result is a circular process and one that is strongly at risk of publication bias. Studies with definite results, and statistically significant relationships are far more likely to be published in peer-reviewed journals than studies with no significant results. Researchers themselves may also exacerbate this bias by not submitting papers with non-results. The effect of this on the conclusions of any meta-analysis are profound, and worse still, unquantifiable. For example, consider the hypothetical case where there may have been 10 studies investigating the impact of litter hygiene on skin disorders in broilers carried out, but only three of these found a significant relationship between hygiene and health. These three papers publish the result. The other seven do not, and focus instead on publishing other aspects of their studies that did produce results. Who is right? It is impossible to tell unless the seven studies with non-results publish their findings. If they do not publish, the conclusion 259

260 of a systematic review and meta-analysis will be that there is a link between hygiene and health (assuming that the studies are all of equally high quality). A frequent problem is that the data needed are not available. Here it would be good to define selection criteria before embarking on observational or experimental studies. This would standardize the approach across the studies give an idea of what kind of data is needed for risk assessment and therefore should be collected. In housing this is clear from the method described above and already used. For other methods of course, it needs to be defined accordingly. Not only a better measure of severity as discussed above - is needed but also more detailed data on the incidence, frequency of hazards arising and the exposure including the effect of a hazard and a duration of exposure. A check-list of for the type of information needed for a risk assessment would be a helpful tool for further welfare studies. For more specialised questions these would need to be defined by the risk assessor and the subject scientists. The subsequent paragraphs give a description of the data lacking for housing for the different species treated in this report Data availability Poultry There are databases with number of birds per European country for laying hens, broilers, turkeys and ducks (Eurostat, FAO). For broiler breeders and geese there are no reliable figures available. The figures that can be obtained are not always available from recent years. Also the distribution over housing systems almost always lacks. Information on number of birds per type of housing is only available for the categories of housing as defined in the European Directive for laying hens. More detailed information on specific housing systems is hardly available. There is a need for a database with number of birds per country and per type of housing for all poultry species. Without this information it is not possible to estimate the incidence of certain hazards. There is a considerable amount of research done on welfare of laying hens. An overview of this work is given in the EFSA report 2005 and in the Laywel project (2006). The information provided focussed on the needs of the birds, and not so much on risk assessment. For laying hens and broilers, protocols to monitor the welfare of the birds were developed in the Welfare Quality project (Welfare Quality, 2009). These protocols focus on the situation on-farm and at the slaughter plant, but they focus on the status of the animal and hardly take into account aspects of risk assessment. Especially for broilers many farms in various European countries were monitored and the data from these recordings could give an idea of the incidence of some hazards, e.g. insufficient ventilation, high temperature, wet litter. Unfortunately there has not been published an article with all collected data, so the original data would have to be collected from the researchers. For other poultry species no large databases are available. The data from various scientific publications often are difficult to combine due to different methods of recording and differences in type of animals used. Also they often deal with information from experimental units that do not always reflect the situation on commercial farms. 260

261 For broiler breeders and broilers recent reports from EFSA are available (EFSA, 2010a and 2010b) dealing with animal welfare risk assessment. For other species reports are not available or very old. Most of the available information on welfare aspects of poultry is suitable to identify hazards, but there is hardly information available regarding severity and duration of adverse effects. For some disease problems (zoonoses) national and international protocols are into force to monitor and register the occurrence. These data could be used to calculate the incidence, but they are often not publicly or easily available. Also for many other hazards no information is available regarding incidence and severity. Sheep and goats The number of sheep and goats in different categories are available (EUROSTAT, FAOSTAT 2008) and holdings (EUROSTAT, 2003), but data has not been updated since There is no database about distribution of housing types for sheep and goats in the different countries. Furthermore, there is no information about if sheep or goats are housed in extensive or intensive conditions in the European countries. Therefore, it was difficult to obtain information about the description of the different housing and husbandry systems in the different countries. Stakeholders of sheep production in different countries were contacted in order to investigate if there were national database available in their region. Furthermore, we requested data about the distribution of the housing types in the different countries. None of the contact persons could provide official data, but they were able to provide estimates based on their own experience. All the information related to welfare aspects was obtained from scientific papers and one relevant book: The welfare of sheep (Year). No information could be obtained from EFSA as there is no EFSA report on sheep or goat welfare. Gonyou (1997) reviewed animal welfare issues relevant to sheep, covering literature as late as Several practices of the sheep industry impinge upon the welfare of the animals (Gonyou, 1997). The welfare of sheep at the time of slaughter was reviewed by Middleton (1995). A review by Macnab (1998) addressed the specific welfare concerns of hill sheep farming in Scotland. Two reviews were published on transportation of sheep (Knowles, 1998; Hall and Bradshaw, 1998). Review article (Sevi et al., 2009) Factors of welfare reduction in dairy sheep and goats Pigs Data about number of pigs are available per country (FAOSTAT, EUROSTAT, 2008). Furthermore, there are data on the number of pig holdings per country (EUROSTAT, 2005). However, these data are always a few years behind in time. There is scarce data about distribution of pig housing systems in Europe (there is no information about number of organic farms per category of pigs, there is no information about number of farms in extensive and intensive conditions, there is no information about type of housing system in the different countries and per categories of animals). Regarding pregnant 261

262 and lactating sows, the SVC (1997) published some data about pregnant and lactating sows housing in some European countries. Regarding, weaned and fattening pigs, the most recent information can be found in Hendriks and van de Weerdhof (1999). Some of this data could be updated by the Q-pork chains project that aims to perform an inventory of existing production systems (at farm level) in Europe. There should be a more complete database about different housing systems in the different countries, distribution of these housing systems according to animal categories, etc. It is difficult to perform exposure assessment if it is not possible to find updated information about distribution of housing systems in Europe. In the case of pigs there are several EFSA reports which talk about different welfare problems and also scientific papers. There are also several research projects like PIGAS ( Q-Pokchains ( and ALCASDE ( which deal with different aspects of welfare problems. Using this information it is easy to identify important hazards in pigs housing systems. More difficult would be to characterize these hazards because there is restricted information available in the scientific papers or in EFSA report about the severity and the duration of the adverse effects, and probability of having adverse effects on welfare if an animal is exposed to a hazard. Cattle In the case of cattle, the distribution of the animal population between different countries and country-specific herd structures, as well as the amounts of milk and beef produced, is relatively well-known from national surveys and compilations by well-reputed international organisations such as FAO or from scientific publications (WP1 report). Information on cattle housing systems and management practices in different European countries and regions is to some extent available. However, the occurrence of different systems and routines (e.g. the percentage of cubicle-housed dairy cattle) is readily available in the scientific literature for only a few major milk-producing countries (WP1 report). More exhaustive and in some cases more accurate information on housing and management in different regions probably exists in practice and can be gained through contacts with regionally based experts on cattle husbandry. At least parts of the cattle production (e.g. the dairy industry) is probably relatively heterogeneous, compared to e.g. broiler or fattening pig rearing, i.e. there is great variation between farms. Different details in housing and management are combined in a large number of ways, depending on local conditions, breed potentials and farmer preferences. This is a complicating factor when assessing hazard exposure. In summary, hazard exposure in the European cattle population can only to a very limited extent rely on scientific publications. The available information on causal relationships between hazards and adverse animal welfare effects is probably more extensive for animal species which are more common or more economically important and which have been kept for a long time, thus motivating and giving time for research. It can be expected that cattle are among the farm-animal species studied most. On the other hand, animals of a smaller size and a shorter generation interval are easier to study; hence research on adverse animal welfare effects might be more extensive 262

263 in e.g. poultry and pigs than in cattle. For economical reasons, a large proportion of research addresses problems related to production traits, while animal welfare traits are so far less well investigated. 40. Outstanding questions There are still a number of unsolved questions related to animal welfare risk assessment. Most of these have been previously discussed in other reports or papers (Müller-Graf et al 2008, Technical Report to EFSA (2006a), EFSA/AHAW/2006/0). In the following we will consider relevant questions and mention what to consider when carrying out a welfare risk analysis in animal husbandry and management Linearity in severity scores Linearity and continuity of adverse effects is often assumed, because it is also technically easiest to deal with. This means that it is often implied that, e.g. severe pain (level 3) means a three times greater reduction in overall welfare than mild pain (level 1), comparing with no pain (level 0). This is of course a simplification. In reality, the association between pain and overall reduction in welfare might be anything else but linear and continuous. Unfortunately, reliable data to support a specific type of relationship usually are lacking and this needs to be considered for the individual risk assessment carried out. The suitable way to deal with it for the moment is to discuss it at the beginning of the study before the RA and define the scores and the relationships Different life stages With all domesticated species, the animals will experience different types of hazard at different stages of their lives. In some cases, they may experience the same hazards differently depending on their life stage. Incorporating different life stages into a risk assessment may therefore be advantageous to provide a more realistic, differentiated assessment, rather than the mean field, holistic approach which may miss certain key details. The key issue with the differentiated life stage assessment is that it requires either that data is available in the scientific literature for each life stage separately, or else that experts have knowledge of the relative values for each measured parameter for each hazard. The latter approach was used in a risk assessment of the effects of management and housing on broiler breeders (EFSA 2010). In that study the life of the broiler chicken was divided into rearing and production phases, and experts estimated values for these life stages separately for those hazards that affected each life stage to a different extent. The benefit of such an approach is that it allows the experts to be more specific with their estimations that they attribute to each measurement, rather than providing one value to cover all life stages. However, a drawback is that the interpretation of the risk assessment outcomes is further complicated. Furthermore, this approach requires that data exists, or that experts have values for each parameter being assessed at each life stage. This is often not feasible, due to a lack of such specific data. 263

264 40.3. Definition of the population used Populations of animals from different breeds or in different housing types may differ considerably. Genotypic and phenotypic differences may need to be taken into account. This needs also to be clearly defined at the start of a risk analysis in order to achieve a consistent and unbiased RA. Even though risk scores are linked to populations, individual animals need to be observed to obtain the data. While this may not be a problem for cattle, it may not always be easy for poultry Chain of events Welfare risk assessments often feature hazards that are not uniquely causative factors, but can also be consequences of secondary hazards. This interactivity and lack of clear hierarchical structure imposes problems on the classically hierarchically structured risk assessment. However, this is not a problem unique to animal welfare risk assessments. Chains of events often need to be considered in other areas of risk assessment, such as health and safety assessments. For example: a person in the workplace may experience stress as a consequence of long working hours and high pressure from managers to reach a target. However, stress can also act as a hazard itself, making affected persons more likely to have accidents in the workplace, or develop other illnesses. In RA of animal welfare, hazards and their adverse effects often form an extensive network of events and more or less long-lasting states, which can be called factors and effects. Many of these will be both hazards and adverse effects at the same time, depending on the point of view and chosen definitions, which complicates the analysis. For instance, bad planning of a building can result in inappropriate flooring, which can result in slipping, which can result in injuries, which can result in secondary disease, which can result in stress, pain and fear. Altogether, these factors and effects can be regarded as a causal chain. Moreover, each effect is usually also influenced by a number of other hazards. In this example, it is not obvious whether bad planning, bad flooring or slipping, or possibly all three, should be regarded as hazards, or if they should be combined in some way. Similarly, it is doubtful whether bad flooring, slipping, injuries, disease, stress, pain or fear should all be regarded as adverse animal welfare effects, and if they should be considered separately or combined in some way Use of expert opinion Selection criteria for experts Scientists that work with issues relating to animal welfare may have various basic training such as veterinarians, animal scientists or biologists with a major in ethology. They may have a career history in various subjects such as infectious diseases, physiology, pathology, applied animal behaviour or animal hygiene. Hence, such experts may vary in their assessment of how severe pain, malaise, frustration or other criteria of poor welfare may be in a given situation. Bracke and co-workers (2008) demonstrated that in general, veterinarians scored the welfare of calves to be somewhat better for a range of housing systems compared to scores provided by ethologists. However, the ranking of those housing systems was similar. It seems reasonable to elaborate a number of selection criteria for selecting experts in each animal welfare risk assessment and publish them together with the assessment (see also Algers, 264

265 2009). Furthermore, experts with different background training should take part to allow for a more stable assessment. Examples of selection criteria are: 1) basic training as veterinarian, animal scientist or biologist with ethology as a main subject. The assessment group should encompass experts from all of these three areas. 2) no less than 10 scientific papers within the area of the risk assessment question published in peer reviewed international scientific journals. 3) all experts involved should in an introductory phase have reached consensus on the identification of the welfare components (adverse effects) to be assessed as well as how to weigh them if one score of adverse effects is used. 4) the experts should either have access to data on exposure or show documented experience with field work to participate in exposure assessment. As an option, a separate set of expert with such experience should be used for the exposure assessment. The number of experts involved in the risk assessment should be based on the principles of the selection criteria, which imply that no less than three experts should be involved in each scoring. In adding more experts (preferably with a balance between the three basic disciplinary training areas described above) would increase cost but probably not precision. However, if a risk question is too broad, various experts may be needed for the scoring of each risk, where they may be considered expert to some of the hazards described but not to others, a procedure not used hitherto. It is clear that when expert opinion is used, transparency is paramount. It needs to be stated clearly how the experts were chosen, whether there was a conflict of interest, how many experts were asked, how many scored in the end and which technique was used to obtain expert information (i.e. Delphi method) and how expert opinion was scored. Experts can either score individually without contact to the other experts, the problem may be that different expert interpret the question differently. Experts can also score together to clarify the scoring together but they may then be influenced by a dominant member in the group. A procedure called Delphi Method is used as an iterative way to obtain expert opinion. Experts have to score in two or more rounds. At the end of each round a summary of the experts scoring is proved and the individual reasoning. Experts have to check their answers in the light of the answers of other experts. It is expected that the group will converge towards the right answer. The process is stopped after a predefined stop criterion (Rowe & Wright, 1999). There are different methods how to sum up the scores from the experts. The most simple way is to take the average of all the experts scores, but distribution of expert scoring could also be weighted by expert knowledge (with specialist having more weight than others), or something like a Borda algorithm (Garvey, 2009) could be applied. Different methods may be used for individual scores or distributions (min, max, mean) obtained from experts. 265

266 40.6. Interactions It has been frequently observed that hazards studied in animal welfare risk assessment do not occur independently of each other, but interact with other hazards. As an example the situation in broilers is described in figure 1. Figure 1 Broilers The non-independence of hazards and consequences, using fast growth rate as an example starting hazard. Fast growth rate is shown to be linked both directly and indirectly to other hazards characterised in the risk assessment, which are considered as independent factors. Grey boxes are hazard consequences. White boxes explain the relationship between hazards where necessary. Arrows show the direction of causality. Note that this image does not contain all the possible consequences of all the hazards shown. For another group, the broiler breeders, the situation is described in figure

267 Figure 2 Broiler breeders. The non-independence of hazards and consequences, using fast growth rate as an example starting hazard. Fast growth rate is shown to be linked both directly and indirectly to other hazards characterised in the risk assessment, which are considered as independent factors. Black boxes are hazards characterised in the risk assessment. Grey boxes are hazard consequences. White boxes explain the relationship between hazards where necessary. Arrows show the direction of causality. Note that this image does not contain all the possible consequences of all the hazards shown. The question of how to deal with interactions and hazard associations in animal welfare risk assessment has been discussed before (e.g. Botreau et al., 2007 and Bracke, 1999), but no obvious method for the handling of interactions in risk analysis of animal welfare has been employed (Bracke, 1999). The reason for this lies in technical problems in developing such a method and the lack of suitable data. However, also the identification of interactions can be rather difficult at times. 267

268 Associations between hazards Associations exist if the different aspects of a certain hazard (severity, duration, frequency, etc.) depend on the aspects of other hazards. Interaction between hazards Interactions exist if one or several adverse effects of a certain hazard depend on the exposure to other hazards. Both associations and interactions can occur between two or more hazards, usually referred to as one-way, two-way, etc. dependencies. Moreover, hazards can be both associated and interact at the same time. Knowledge about interactions usually comes from research where it has been reported important in statistical models derived from empirical data. In such instances, significant interaction should be reported when revealed. However, due to limitations of the number of statistical tests that can be carried out in one model and to interpretative difficulties with too many and too complex interactions, usually only statistically significant one-way interactions (P<0.05) are reported in practice. Therefore, when an animal welfare risk is to be calculated (i.e. predicted) from hazard exposure, there is an obvious risk to leave out essential interactions, simply because they haven t been reported previously. There are several problems that could arise, when not taking associations and interactions of hazards into account. If two associated / interacting hazards are included in the analysis, but both depend on each other in a way such that the occurrence of one hazard automatically calls for the occurrence of the other, a separate inclusion of both hazards could lead to an overestimation of risk. In contrast, if the presence of the first hazard makes the second hazard less common, it will lead to an underestimation of the risk. Another example could be two hazards that amplify each other's impact. A separate inclusion in the analysis would imply an impact that is too low than it could be in reality, which would result in an underestimation of risk. Failure to take this extra adverse effect from interaction into account can lead to either underestimation or underestimation of the risk, depending on the direction of the extra effect, on the way the adverse effects were quantified and on the way the risk estimate is calculated. If random variation is attached to hazard exposure or to the likelihood of adverse effects, the influence of associations and interactions will depend on how this random variation is specified in the risk model. The extent to which neglect of associations and interactions distorts animal welfare risk estimates on a whole is not known. Existing Methods Currently interactions are described qualitatively by expert opinion. Generally, an option to actually avoid the inclusion and modelling of interactions in the risk analysis is by reducing their impact. This is done by a careful and explicit description of the hazards (Bracke et al., 268

269 2002). Similar to the analysis of the housing of pregnant sows (EFSA 2007a), the hazard description does not only characterise the main hazard (for example exposure to cold ), but also an influencing factor (as feeding level ). Of course, this might lead to an overlap of hazards, but other than that, this methodology avoids an increase in complexity of the risk model. Verbal descriptions cannot be included in a semi-quantitative or quantitative risk assessment. However, the necessary data are often lacking. One way to avoid problems due to associations between hazards is to avoid calculating a sum risk, thus looking at risk estimates for each hazard separately. In practice, for other reasons, this has often been the approach in risk assessment exercises on animal welfare. However, assessment results presented this way will not convey a complete picture. Likewise, separate risk estimates for different hazards without relevant account for interactions will leave out possibly important aspects of the risks studied. Associations and interactions can also be accounted for separately, by estimating the risk due to a specific hazard at different levels of an associated or interacting hazard (Bracke et al., 2002). Similar to the example on the housing of pregnant sows above, genotype by housing interaction can be described by considering the influence of housing on different breeds separately. Of course, this might lead to an overlap of hazards, but other than that, this methodology avoids an increase in complexity of the risk model. Limiting factors are the number of interactions and the number of the different states of the hazards. This method does not apply to hazards measured on a continuous scale. More than two hazards were never analysed. A third possibility to deal with interactions between hazards is to give a full description of the interaction, specifying the adverse effect of each of the interacting hazards separately and also the extra adverse effect (positive or negative) due to each interaction between them. Basically, in a risk table with one line for each hazard, this approach will add one line for each interaction to consider, just like in multiple regression analysis. Again, a limiting factor is the number of interactions. One example is shown in the Scientific Opinion by the EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on different housing systems in pigs (EFSA 2007a), which also involved pregnant sows. There were interacting hazards, such as aggression due to type of group (which where small stable groups and large dynamic groups) and aggression due to the type of mixing in the group (which were: single pig entered existing group or all pigs are unfamiliar). If the interacting hazards are outlined by continuous data such as temperature, the specification of all possible combinations is not directly applicable. But, as done in the Scientific Report on farmed Atlantic salmon (EFSA 2008), on could work with cut-off values. The risk analysis used data adapted from Wedemeyer (1996) on the percentage of un-ionised ammonia, which is toxic for fish compared to total ammonia, in relation to ph-value and temperature. It was shown, that higher levels of toxic ammonia were linked to higher values in temperature and ph. Temperature and ph-value can of course be measured on a continuous 269

270 scale, but were transformed into binary variables with the options too high or too low, which were defined by a cut-off value. Those binary values were then included in the risk analysis. A problem with this kind of transformation is always the loss of information. A direct use of continuous data in animal welfare risk assessment - at least when comparing husbandry systems - has so far not been developed. Possible development of the methodology for dealing with interactions Qualitatively A first step towards the incorporation of interactions in an animal welfare risk analysis would be to point out where those interactions occur. This could be done in a graphic visualization. At a first glance at, which of the hazards involved in the risk analysis are dependent, a matrix of interactions is very useful. This may also be a tool for experts to declare what kind of interaction they see between hazards. It can be indicated, if interacting hazards amplify the risk to animal welfare, which would be a positive interaction, or if they constrain each other, which would be a negative interaction (see Figure 3). H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H1? H2 - + H3? + positive interaction between hazards H negative interaction between hazards H5? interaction of unknown structure H6 + - Figure 3. Example of an interaction matrix Quantitatively 270

271 Ideally the knowledge about interactions should be incorporated also into the quantitative risk analysis. In a way, this has been done in the risk assessment of farmed Atlantic salmon (EFSA 2008), but the categorising of the continuous data lead to loss of information. Another way of dealing with interacting hazards measured on a continuous scale, may be regression, where the dependent variable is described by a formula that uses the independent variables and corresponding coefficients. As the toxicity of ammonia depends on temperature and ph-value, it should be possible to define this characteristic using the other two. That way, from knowing the values of the independent variables, the values of the dependent variable can be derived. Looking at the data on the toxicity of ammonia, a linear regression gives an excellent fit of 2 r 0.93, where temperature (coefficient = ) and the product of ph-value and temperature (coefficient = 0.362) are the dependent variables, defining the percentage of unionised ammonia in seawater. A regression with ph-value instead of the interaction of phvalue and temperature as dependent variables doesn't give such a good fit. 2 Equally, a linear regression with data derived from freshwater gives the best fit ( r ) with temperature (coefficient = ) and the interaction of ph-value and temperature (coefficient = 0.159) as dependent variables. Knowing this relationship, frequency, duration and severity of ammonia content could be modelled with the corresponding data of temperature and ph-value*temperature. If the variables temperature and ph-value constitute hazards themselves, they should then be included in the analysis alone, additionally to their role in defining ammonia toxicity. This way, the interaction would not only be highlighted, but included in the risk analysis. This would be a method when looking at a particular question such as the risk of an adverse effect of ammonium. To use it in a table with numerous variables interacting and the result being a comparison between factors and for example husbandry systems, the method will have to be developed even further. Even if the nature of the interaction of certain hazards is not totally clear, or cannot be backed by corresponding data, the existence of interactions should not be ignored in the analysis. Another possibility is the ontological analysis, which illustrates dependencies (in the form of pathways). Ontological analysis is a basic hierarchical system for visualising relationships between different welfare hazards and consequences, based on principles and practices in information systems and philosophy. An ontological analysis deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. It addresses the question of categories of being and their relations. To date, the ontology has only been used in welfare risk assessment for a qualitative assessment of the welfare problems of broilers and broiler breeders (Figures 1 and 2) (EFSA, 2010). Here, it was used to systematically map out the broiler and broiler breeder husbandry system, according to three main factors: environment, subjects and external factors. Each of 271

272 these factors was populated with a cascading hierarchy of dependent classes to describe in more and more detail the husbandry system, hazards and consequences experienced by broilers and broiler breeders in commercial systems. The ontology was furnished with links between related factors, to create a visual map similar to a taxonomic illustration of relatedness between species. These links were not quantified with data from the published literature. However, it is envisioned that future research could investigate the use of a quantitative ontological assessment, incorporating data to describe the strength of relationships between different hazards and consequences. This could potentially be used in future risk assessments as a means of ascertaining the levels of dependence and covariance between different hazards and consequences. The system is easily adaptable to any farmed animal species. Figure 4: Screen shot of OWL ontological hierarchy, showing an expansion of the hierarchy relating to the Subject or animal species of interest. To the right of the diagram, a list of annotations is shown describing welfare problems associated with the reproductive system (highlighted in the main hierarchy in blue). Qualitative linkages can be formed in the OWL program between two or more hazards or consequences. 272

273 Figure 5. A screenshot of the OWL ontology for broilers, showing an expanded view of the pathogens to which subjects may be exposed. Pathogens are divided into four categories: bacteria, fungi, parasites and viruses. Each of the four categories is then further subdivided, for example parasites is subdivided into Eimeria, mites and tapeworms. The box on the right of the figure again shows a list of annotations relating to the highlighted Eimeria class. Here, the annotations are a list of species names Uncertainty and Variability In risk assessments based on expert opinion, the scoring process performed by the experts will naturally have a very large impact on the end outcome. Uncertainty and variability in expert opinions can be a consequence of a number of factors. Firstly, different experts involved in the risk assessment process will likely have expertise in different areas and as such, will differ in their certainty when answering questions relating to areas outside their direct experience compared with questions within their sphere of expertise. Scores or opinions offered on hazards that are less well known to the expert may be said to be less certain and are likely to also be more variable. In this case, one could manipulate the scores according to the level of certainty of the expert providing it to give an encompassing range around the expert s original estimate. However, this can create another problem, which is that if just a few scores in a risk assessment have a wide range, the resulting risk score will also have a large range. This may not necessarily be problematic, if it is a true reflection of current knowledge and can direct future research requirements. However, if it does not reflect 273