Understanding, Assessing and Improving Farm Animal Welfare 1800628021, 9781800628021

Table of contents :
Cover
Understanding, Assessing and Improving Farm Animal Welfare
Copyright
Contents
The Authors
The Contributors
Glossary
Figure Credits
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
1 Understanding Animal Welfare
1.1 Contemporary Societal Expectations in Terms of Animal Welfare
1.1.1 High expectations from consumers
1.1.2 Factors in the evolution of societal demand
1.1.3 The role of animal protection associations
1.1.4 The growing awareness of animal welfare among institutions and professionals
1.2 The Historical Development of the Concept of Animal Welfare
1.2.1 In the philosophical tradition
1.2.2 Key texts
1.2.3 Developments in European and French regulations
1.3 Regulations in Europe, France and the Rest of the World
1.3.1 European regulations
The Council of Europe
The European Union
On a national scale
The OIE, a worldwide reference
1.4 Scientific Basis for the Sentient and Conscious Nature of Animals
1.4.1 The sentience of animals
A sensory dimension to sentience
The psychological dimension of sentience
1.4.2 The relationship between emotional reactions and animal welfare
Modulation of evaluation abilities after an emotion: judgement and learning biases
Persistence of cognitive bias after repeated emotional experience
The genetic variability of emotional sentience
1.5 Definitions of Animal Welfare
1.5.1 The concepts of harmony, adaptation, perception and representation of the environment
Broad definitions of welfare
Welfare: harmony between the individual and environment
Welfare: the ability to adapt to your environment
Welfare: the importance of emotions
Welfare: in reference to what would be human welfare
1.5.2 The current Anses definition
Recognition of the animal’s individuality
Welfare and appropriate treatment are not the same thing
The need for a complementary operational definition
1.5.3 Operational definitions
The five freedoms
How to implement the five freedoms
1.6 General Conclusion
Notes
2 Assessing Animal Welfare
2.1 Animal Welfare Assessment Indicators
2.1.1 The two main categories of indicators
Environment-based indicators
Animal-based indicators
2.1.2 The choice between the two main categories of indicators
2.1.3 Indicators of welfare or deterioration in welfare
2.1.4 Assessing at animal or herd level
2.2 Animal-based Indicators
2.2.1 Early indicators
2.2.2 Behavioural indicators
Changes in animal activity
Changes in animal reactivity
2.2.3 Physiological indicators
2.2.4 Production indicators
2.2.5 Health indicators
2.2.6 Results of indicator measurement
2.3 Validation of Indicators
2.3.1 Validation criteria
Specificity
Sentience, or suitability for the objective
Repeatability
Reproducibility
Stability over time
Feasibility
2.3.2 Validation of the measurement method
2.4 What Integration Process Should Be Used to Assess Animal Welfare?
2.4.1 Why is an integration process necessary?
2.4.2 The purpose of the integration process
2.4.3 What are the main options for integrating a multitude of data?
Integration of individual scores
Integration of herd scores
2.5 Application through a Number of Assessment Protocols
2.5.1 The Welfare Quality® protocol
Principles and criteria for welfare
Calculating scores
Application of the protocol in livestock farming
2.5.2 Other Welfare Quality® protocols
2.5.3 Labelling developed by the Animal Welfare Label Association
2.6 The Welfare Improvement Loop
2.6.1 Stage 1: assessing animal welfare
2.6.2 Stage 2: Identify the factors causing degradation
2.6.3 Stage 3: propose and implement corrective actions
2.6.4 Stage 4: evaluating the measures implemented
2.7 The Contribution of New
2.7.1 Overview of tools available in the field
How are tools used to measure animal welfare?
Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition
The absence of discomfort
Freedom from pain, injury and illness
The absence of fear and distress, and the possibility of feeling positive emotions
The expression of natural behaviour specific to the species
2.7.2 Ethical issues relating to connected objects
A legal vacuum
The impact of connected objects on the human–animal relationship
The status and use of data from connected objects
2.8 General Conclusion
3 Improving Animal Welfare
3.1 Improving the Physical and Social Environment for Farm Animals
3.1.1 Reminder of animal needs and expectations
3.1.2 Improving the physical environment
Free-range farming systems
Housing conditions
3.1.3 Improving the social environment
Group mixing
Social separation
Weaning and separation from the dam
3.1.4 Enrichment as a means of improvement
Physical enrichment
Social enrichment
Cognitive or occupational enrichment
3.2 Improving Animal–human Interactions through Better Relational Practices
3.2.1 The importance of good relations between animals and humans
3.2.2 Human intervention in livestock farming
3.2.3 The human–animal relationship
3.2.4 Animals’ perception of human actions
3.2.5 Assessing the human–animal relationship
3.2.6 Improving the human–animal relationship
The influence of genetics on this relationship
The construction of the human–animal relationship and the notion of a sentient period
Training and improving human behaviour
Organizing work to improve relational practices
3.3 Integrated Health Management
3.3.1 What is integrated management?
3.3.2 Health risks in livestock farming
3.3.3 The six pillars of integrated health management
3.4 Better Management of Animal Pain
3.4.1 Pain
3.4.2 The diversity of sources of pain in livestock farming
3.4.3 How can pain be detected in farm animals?
3.4.4 Pain management: the 3S principle, analogous to the 3R rule
Why have hornless cattle?
Eliminating the source of pain
Replacing practices with less-painful ones
Relieving unavoidable pain
Eliminating the source of pain
Replacing practices with less painful ones
Relieving unavoidable pain
3.5 The Role of Genetics in Improving Animal Welfare
3.5.1 The role of genetics in many disturbances for animals
3.5.2 Questioning zootechnical performance objectives in selection schemes
3.5.3 Taking functional characteristics into account
3.5.4 Consider genetic solutions to specific problems
3.6 Improving Transport and Slaughter Conditions
3.6.1 A few preliminary remarks
3.6.2 The main stages of transport and slaughter
3.6.3 The main sources of stress and pain
3.6.4 Assessment of animal protection during transport and slaughter
3.6.5 Avenues for improvement to limit potential sources of stress and pain
Recognition of the sentient nature of animals
Equipment functionality
Operator training
3.7 Conclusion: The Concept of ‘One Welfare’
Notes
Quiz
Quiz – Part 1
Quiz – Part 2
Quiz – Part 3
Answers
Answers to the quiz (part 1)
Answers to the quiz (part 2)
Answers to the quiz (part 3)
Bibliography
Websites
Index
Back Cover
Untitled

Citation preview

Understanding, Assessing and Improving Farm Animal Welfare

Understanding, Assessing and Improving Farm Animal Welfare

Edited by

Luc Mounier

CABI is a trading name of CAB International CABI 200 Portland Street Boston MA 02114 USA

CABI Nosworthy Way Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8DE UK Tel: +44 (0)1491 832111 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cabi.org

Tel: +1 (617)682-9015 E-mail: [email protected]

Originally published in French under the title Bien-être des animaux d’élevage by Luc Mounier. © Éditions Quæ, 2021. English edition translated by DeepL and © CAB International, 2024. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be re-produced in any form or by any means, electronically, mechanically, by photocopy-ing, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owners. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of, and should not be attributed to, CAB International (CABI). Any images, figures and tables not otherwise attributed are the author(s)’ own. References to internet websites (URLs) were accurate at the time of writing. CAB International and, where different, the copyright owner shall not be liable for technical or other errors or omissions contained herein. The information is sup-plied without obligation and on the understanding that any person who acts upon it, or otherwise changes their position in reliance thereon, does so entirely at their own risk. Information supplied is neither intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional advice. The reader/user accepts all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from using this information. CABI’s Terms and Conditions, including its full disclaimer, may be found at https://www. cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library, London, UK. ISBN-13: 9781800628021 (hardback) 9781800628038 (ePDF) 9781800628045 (ePub) DOI: 10.1079/9781800628045.0000 Commissioning Editor: Alexandra Lainsbury Editorial Assistant: Helen Elliott Production Editor: James Bishop Translator: DeepL and Straive, Pondicherry, India Typeset by Straive, Pondicherry, India Printed and bound in the UK by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY

Contents

The Authors

xi

The Contributors

xiii

Glossary

xv

Figure Credits

xix

PART 1

– UNDERSTANDING ANIMAL WELFARE

1

1.1

Contemporary Societal Expectations in Terms of Animal Welfare 1.1.1 High expectations from consumers 1.1.2 Factors in the evolution of societal demand 1.1.3 The role of animal protection associations 1.1.4 The growing awareness of animal welfare among institutions and professionals

2 2 3 5 7

1.2

The Historical Development of the Concept of Animal Welfare 1.2.1 In the philosophical tradition 1.2.2 Key texts 1.2.3 Developments in European and French regulations

9 9 10 11

1.3

Regulations in Europe, France and the Rest of the World 1.3.1 European regulations The Council of Europe Structure and operation Achievements The European Union Structure and operation Achievements Support for animal welfare research On a national scale Structure and operation Achievements

11 12 12 12 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 19

v

vi

Contents

The OIE, a worldwide reference Structure and operation of the OIE Achievements 1.4

19 21 21

Scientifc Basis for the Sentient and Conscious Nature of Animals 1.4.1 The sentience of animals A sensory dimension to sentience The psychological dimension of sentience 1.4.2 The relationship between emotional reactions and animal welfare Modulation of evaluation abilities after an emotion: judgement and learning biases Persistence of cognitive bias after repeated emotional experience The genetic variability of emotional sentience

22 24 24 25 28

Defnitions of Animal Welfare 1.5.1 The concepts of harmony, adaptation, perception and representation of the environment Broad defnitions of welfare Welfare: harmony between the individual and environment Welfare: the ability to adapt to your environment Welfare: the importance of emotions Welfare: in reference to what would be human welfare 1.5.2 The current Anses defnition Recognition of the animal’s individuality Welfare and appropriate treatment are not the same thing The need for a complementary operational defnition 1.5.3 Operational defnitions The fve freedoms How to implement the fve freedoms

36 37 37 38 38 38 40 41 41 41 43 43 43 44

1.6

General Conclusion

47

PART 2

– ASSESSING ANIMAL WELFARE

49

2.1

Animal Welfare Assessment Indicators 2.1.1 The two main categories of indicators Environment-based indicators Animal-based indicators 2.1.2 The choice between the two main categories of indicators 2.1.3 Indicators of welfare or deterioration in welfare 2.1.4 Assessing at animal or herd level

50 51 52 53 53 54 55

2.2

Animal-based Indicators 2.2.1 Early indicators 2.2.2 Behavioural indicators Changes in animal activity Changes in animal reactivity 2.2.3 Physiological indicators 2.2.4 Production indicators 2.2.5 Health indicators 2.2.6 Results of indicator measurement

56 57 58 58 60 60 62 63 64

1.5

30 31 34

Contents

vii

2.3

Validation of Indicators 2.3.1 Validation criteria Specifcity Sentience, or suitability for the objective Repeatability Reproducibility Stability over time Feasibility 2.3.2 Validation of the measurement method

65 65 65 66 66 66 67 67 68

2.4

What Integration Process Should Be Used to Assess Animal Welfare? 2.4.1 Why is an integration process necessary? 2.4.2 The purpose of the integration process 2.4.3 What are the main options for integrating a multitude of data? Integration of individual scores Integration of herd scores

68 69 69 70 70 72

2.5

Application through a Number of Assessment Protocols 2.5.1 The Welfare Quality® protocol Principles and criteria for welfare Calculating scores Application of the protocol in livestock farming 2.5.2 Other Welfare Quality® protocols 2.5.3 Labelling developed by the Animal Welfare Label Association

73 73 75 75 78 80 82

2.6

The Welfare Improvement Loop 2.6.1 Stage 1: assessing animal welfare 2.6.2 Stage 2: identify the factors causing degradation 2.6.3 Stage 3: propose and implement corrective actions 2.6.4 Stage 4: evaluating the measures implemented

82 83 83 84 85

2.7

The Contribution of New Technologies to Assessing and Improving Animal Welfare 2.7.1 Overview of tools available in the feld How are tools used to measure animal welfare? Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition The absence of discomfort Freedom from pain, injury and illness The absence of fear and distress, and the possibility of feeling positive emotions The expression of natural behaviour specifc to the species 2.7.2 Ethical issues relating to connected objects A legal vacuum The impact of connected objects on the human–animal relationship The status and use of data from connected objects

86 86 88 88 88 88 90 90 91 92 92 93

2.8

General Conclusion

94

PART 3

– IMPROVING ANIMAL WELFARE

96

3.1

Improving the Physical and Social Environment for Farm Animals 3.1.1 Reminder of animal needs and expectations 3.1.2 Improving the physical environment Free-range farming systems Housing conditions

97 97 98 98 99

viii

Contents

3.1.3

3.1.4

3.2

Ambient conditions Freedom of movement Resting conditions Floor covering Access to food and water Improving the social environment Group mixing Social separation Weaning and separation from the dam Enrichment as a means of improvement Physical enrichment Social enrichment Maintaining stable social groups Allowing individuals to isolate themselves if they want to Raising young cattle in groups or with their dam Cognitive or occupational enrichment

Improving Animal–human Interactions through Better Relational Practices 3.2.1 The importance of good relations between animals and humans 3.2.2 Human intervention in livestock farming 3.2.3 The human–animal relationship 3.2.4 Animals’ perception of human actions 3.2.5 Assessing the human–animal relationship 3.2.6 Improving the human–animal relationship The infuence of genetics on this relationship The construction of the human–animal relationship and the notion of a sentient period Training and improving human behaviour Organizing work to improve relational practices

99 100 101 101 101 101 102 103 103 104 104 104 105 105 105 105 106 106 106 107 108 109 110 110 111 112 113

3.3 Integrated Health Management 3.3.1 What is integrated management? 3.3.2 Health risks in livestock farming 3.3.3 The six pillars of integrated health management

114 114 114 114

3.4 Better Management of Animal Pain 3.4.1 Pain 3.4.2 The diversity of sources of pain in livestock farming 3.4.3 How can pain be detected in farm animals? 3.4.4 Pain management: the 3S principle, analogous to the 3R rule

118 118 118 119 123

3.5 The Role of Genetics in Improving Animal Welfare 3.5.1 The role of genetics in many disturbances for animals 3.5.2 Questioning zootechnical performance objectives in selection schemes 3.5.3 Taking functional characteristics into account 3.5.4 Consider genetic solutions to specifc problems

126 126 129 130 132

3.6 Improving Transport and Slaughter Conditions 3.6.1 A few preliminary remarks 3.6.2 The main stages of transport and slaughter 3.6.3 The main sources of stress and pain 3.6.4 Assessment of animal protection during transport and slaughter

132 132 133 134 136

Contents

3.7

ix

3.6.5 Avenues for improvement to limit potential sources of stress and pain Recognition of the sentient nature of animals Equipment functionality Operator training

136 137 138 139

Conclusion: The Concept of ‘One Welfare’

140

Quiz

143

Bibliography

153

Index

159

The Authors

Alain Boissy is Director of Research at INRAE. His work focuses on the study of the behaviour and welfare of farm animals. He takes both an analytical approach to the emotional and cognitive capacities of animals and a targeted approach aimed at reconciling animal welfare and production efficiency. His favourite disciplines are ethology and psychophysiology. He is the author of more than 150 scientific articles and reviews and around 30 articles for transfer purposes. From 2017 to 2023, he has headed the French Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (https://www.cnr-bea.fr/), which brings together the main research, development and teaching bodies working in the field of animal welfare. He is a full member of the Académie d’Agriculture de France since 2018. Alice de Boyer des Roches is an ethologist and agricultural engineer. She is a professor in animal husbandry, animal behaviour and animal welfare at the VetAgro Sup veterinary schoolof Lyon (France), where she also belongs to the Animal Welfare Chair. She is a member of the European College of Animal Welfare. Her research work, conducted at the UMR Herbivores (INRAE-VetAgro Sup) in the Caraibe team (animal behaviour, robustness and integrated approach to welfare), focuses on welfare (assessment, identification of risk factors and proposed solutions) and pain (detection, relief, prevention) of farm animals. She is particularly interested in the links between pain, emotion and cognition. Christine Duvaux-Ponter is an agricultural engineer by training and currently a professor of physiology applied to farm animal welfare at AgroParisTech. At the end of the 1990s, she helped set up training modules on animal welfare for engineering students. She conducts her research at the UMR Université Paris-Saclay-INRAE-AgroParisTech MoSAR (Modélisation systémique appliquée aux ruminants), of which she was deputy director for eight years. Her work focuses mainly on the feeding behaviour of goats and on understanding individual variability in animals’ response to diets and feeding practices. Since 2014, she has been Director of Doctoral Training at AgroParisTech and a member of the AgroParisTech Management Board. Raphaël Guatteo is a lecturer and researcher in bovine herd health management at Oniris and a European veterinary specialist in bovine herd health management and animal welfare. His teaching activities focus on individual and collective ruminant medicine, epidemiology, pain management and animal welfare assessment. His research activities focus on the epidemiology of infectious and production diseases in cattle. In recent years, he has been particularly interested in the contribution of monitoring tools to the management of animal health and welfare. He is a member of the CNR Bien-être animal. xi

xii

The Authors

Marie-Christine Meunier-Salaün is a research engineer at UMR 1348 Pegase INRAE Agrocampus Ouest. Her research focuses on the mechanisms and behavioural responses of animals adapting to their rearing conditions, particularly pigs, and on the assessment of animal welfare using a multi-disciplinary approach. She was an expert for Anses from 2012 to 2018. Since 2019, she has represented INRAE on the steering committee of the CNR BEA. Pierre Mormède’s research career at INRA has focused on stress (neuroendocrinology, neurobiology, behaviour, genetics) in rats as a model species and in pigs as a farmed species. Now an emeritus research director, he has been an expert with Anses in the animal health and welfare group since 2012. He helped set up the CNR BEA (2017–2019) and has been chairman of the CNREEA (Comité national de réflexion éthique sur l’expérimentation animale) since 2019. He has been a full member of the Académie vétérinaire de France since 2009. Luc Mounier, DVM, PhD, HDR, is professor in animal welfare at the National Veterinray School of Lyon and european specialist in Animal Welfare Science, Ethics and Law in 2012. He conducts his research within the UMR Herbivores (INRAE-VetAgro Sup) on the assessment of welfare, more specifically in dairy cattle. In 2018, he co-ordinated the MOOC ‘The welfare of farm animals’, which was disseminated six times and recorded more than 15,000 registrations. He is responsible of the animal welfare unit at VetAgro Sup and is a member of the french national reference center of animal welfare as well as the national veterinary ethics committee.

The Contributors

Cécile Bourguet is an ethology researcher and consultant. Since 2011, she has been running ETRE, the first private consultancy set up in France dedicated to research, expertise and training in the fields of farm animal behaviour and welfare. It specializes in stress issues during the slaughter period and carries out applied research and scientific appraisals. She also advises professionals, NGOs and public institutions. Her approach is based on an understanding of the behaviour and sensory world of farm animals with a view to better adapting the environment and practices to the animals while improving the working conditions of those working with them. Xavier Boivin is an ethologist and Director of Research at the UMR Herbivores at the INRAE-VetAgro Sup Clermont-Auvergne centre. He has been developing his research for over 30 years on the construction of human–animal relationships in livestock farming. Interacting with the human and social sciences, he explores the relational practices of farmers with their animals, particularly suckler cattle and sheep. Claudia Terlouw is a scientist working at the UMR Herbivores (INRAE-VetAgro Sup) and the University of Clermont-Auvergne. As a biologist specializing in animal stress-related behaviour and physiology, she began working on abnormal behaviour, such as induced polydipsia in rats and stereotyped behaviour in sows. Since joining INRAE in 1992, she has been studying the causes of stress during slaughter, as well as its consequences in terms of animal welfare and meat quality. She is also interested in the neurobiological mechanisms underlying the effects of stunning and bleeding techniques on brain function, particularly in relation to the induction of unconsciousness and death. She transfers the knowledge gained to the scientific community and to those working in the field.

xiii

Glossary

Abolitionism – ideology challenging the very principle of animal farming and, more generally, any appropriation and exploitation of animals by humans Acetonaemia – also known as ketosis. Accumulation of ketone bodies in the blood caused by a defcit in glucose energy intake. It results from a malfunction in carbohydrate and lipid metabolism Affliative interactions – inter-individual relationships refecting a preferential bond between individuals. They contribute to group cohesion by reducing aggression Agonistic behaviour – all behaviours linked to confrontations between individuals. This includes aggressive behaviour and fight behaviour Agonistic interactions – inter-individual relations expressed through competition or aggression between individuals. These interactions can be direct (blows) or indirect (threats) Animal consciousness – subjective or phenomenal experience that an animal has of its environment, its own body and/or its own knowledge Animal pain – aversive sensory and emotional experience represented by the animal’s ‘awareness’ of the rupture or threatened rupture of its tissue integrity Animal-based indicators – these are derived from the observation of animals and enable their welfare to be assessed Anti-speciesism – a philosophical and moral school of thought which considers that the species to which an animal belongs is not a relevant criterion for deciding how it should be treated and the moral consideration it should be given Behavioural indicators – these are derived from observations of the animals’ behaviour and are used to assess their welfare Behavioural repertoire – set of behaviours specifc to a species, providing an exhaustive description of the continuity of an individual’s motor activity Bolus – a device using wireless technology and ingested by the animal to monitor certain physiological parameters Caudophagy – biting the tail of a conspecifc Criteria for validating an indicator: feasibility – a property that allows an indicator to be used in a farming context in as many situations as possible and by as many observers as possible repeatability – property that allows us to check that an indicator gives the same result when it assesses the same situation at two different times xv

xvi

Glossary

reproducibility – property that allows us to check that an indicator gives the same result when used by two different observers to assess the same situation sentience – the property of an indicator that enables even small changes in welfare to be detected at an early stage, thereby avoiding false negatives (presentation of a negative result when welfare has actually declined) specifcity – a property that ensures that the indicator measures only what it is intended to measure and nothing else stability over time – a property that makes it possible to verify that an indicator gives the same result if it is used at different times and if, during this period, welfare has not changed Cull cow – a cow judged unft for calf and/or milk production due to its age or other criteria (illness, behaviour etc.) Emotions – intense but brief affective reaction to an event, associated with specifc physical and physiological changes Escape distance – distance within which an animal considers an element (fellow animal, human, predator) to be a threat and will modify its behaviour, either by feeing or attacking Feed fence – a system of restraint located between the animal’s living area and the feed area, used to block animals in order to limit competition or carry out treatments Functional characteristics – a set of characteristics not directly linked to production capacity. They are selected to improve the biological functions of animals, and therefore their longevity Genetic selection – the process of selecting individuals expressing a phenotype for one or more traits deemed benefcial for improving the breed Genomic selection – method of selecting breeding stock on the basis of evaluation results based on traditional phenotype and pedigree information, but also on knowledge of the genome of these animals Genotype – all the genetic characteristics (all the alleles of all the genes) of a living being, whether or not they are refected in its phenotype Health indicators – measures of the deterioration in the health of animals (appearance of wounds, disease etc.) used to assess their welfare High-throughput phenotyping – method of determining measurable phenotypes in a repeatable, automated and rapid way, so that the measurement process generates a large amount of data, speeding up selection Hypocalcaemia – a fall in blood calcium concentration that can lead to clinical (< 50 mg/l) or subclinical (< 85 mg/l) hypocalcaemia. Hypocalcaemia, known as ‘milk fever’ at calving time, is due to a sudden increase in calcium demand at the start of lactation Immunocastration – vaccination which delays puberty by neutralizing the hormones of the gonadotropic axis with specifc antibodies Indicators based on the environment – measures used to check that the conditions provided, the practices and the care carried out are appropriate to the physiological and behavioural needs of the animals Integration process – involves combining the indicator scores obtained on individual animals to obtain a score on each indicator for the herd as a whole, and then combining all these indicator scores at herd level to obtain an overall herd welfare score Lactation – in dairy cows, lactation begins on the day of calving and ends at dry-off. In order to be able to compare the lactations of different females, the reference lactation has been set at 305 days Lactation peak – corresponds to the maximum daily milk production after calving. In dairy cows, the peak is generally reached between four and six weeks after calving, then production decreases until dry-off Live weight – weight of the live animal Mastitis – infammation of the udder, usually due to the penetration and development of bacteria in the mammary gland Morbidity – percentage of sick animals in a given population

Glossary

xvii

Nociceptive stimulus – stimulus which threatens the integrity of the organism and activates receptors responsible for the body’s defence mechanisms One welfare – a concept combining animal welfare, human welfare and environmental protection Phenotype – all the observable characteristics of an individual. It depends on gene expression and the environment Physiological indicators – measurements of physiological changes (hormone secretions, heart rate etc.) in animals used to assess their welfare Prevalence – number of cases of disease or disorder at a given time or over a given period, expressed as a percentage of the population studied Production indicators – measurements of changes in animal production (growth, milk and egg production, reproduction parameters, meat quality etc.) used to assess animal welfare Reallocation – the practice of grouping animals from different groups to form a new group. This grouping can be based on sex, with males on one side and females on the other, or on weight (grouping animals of the same weight to make feeding easier) RIFD (Radio Frequency Identifcation) chip – chip used to store and retrieve data remotely Robustness – the animal’s ability to express its production potential in a wide range of environments without compromising its physical health and welfare Slatted foor – an open-work foor used to drain animal waste and wash water into a collection pit; in livestock farming, slatted foors can be made of concrete, plastic or metal Somatic milk cells – body cells other than the cells that produce gametes; they have two origins: mammary tissue renewal cells and white blood cells. Counting somatic cells in milk enables infammation of the udder to be detected Stereotypy – repeated, fxed-form activity with no apparent purpose. It is an abnormal behaviour observed in an animal developing in an environment with few stimuli; for example, the sham or vacuum chewing developed by certain reproductive sows Suffering – emotional state of distress associated with events that threaten an individual’s biological or psychological integrity Theory of reasoned action – theory explaining that an individual’s behaviour is largely infuenced by their attitudes, i.e. the judgement they make of something or someone Time budget – time spent by an animal on each of its activities over a 24-hour period Veganism – lifestyle consisting of not consuming or using any product derived from animals, from their exploitation or tested on them Vegetarianism – a dietary practice that excludes the consumption of animal fesh Welfare – an animal positive mental and physical state related to the fulflment of its physiological and behavioural needs and its expectations. This state varies according to the animal’s perception of the situation Welfare indicator – measure enabling a value to be assigned to a welfare criterion assessed on farms Welfarism – ideology that aims to improve the condition of animals under human care, particularly farm animals, but without challenging the principle of human supervision Zootechnics – all the sciences and techniques involved in the breeding, selection and reproduction of animals to obtain products or services for human consumption

Figure Credits

Part 1 Infographics (except Figures 1.1 and 1.20 by Sabine Li/chaire BEA, cc-by SA Figure 1.2A © André Louis, Fonds André Louis/collection Musée du vivant-AgroParisTech Figure 1.2B © Luc Mounier Figure 1.21 © Élodie Laurent Figure 1.23A © Béatrice Mounaix Figure 1.23B © Béatrice Mounaix

Part 2 Computer graphics by Sabine Li/chaire BEA cc-by SA, except figures 2.3, 2.12, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.20, 2.28, 2.31 and Table 2.1. Figure 2.9 © Luc Mounier Figure 2.13 (left) © Sophie Mahendran Figure 2.13 (right) © Chelle129/Adobe Stock Figure 2.23 © Sabine Li Revision: Juliette BlanchetDesign: Paul Mounier-Piron

Part 3 Figure 3.1 © Luc Mounier Figure 3.2 © Lucie Maynard Figure 3.3 © Luc Mounier Figure 3.4 © Luc Mounier Figure 3.5 © Adrien Montefusco Figure 3.6 © UMR Herbivores, CARAIBE Figure 3.7 © Dominique Pomies Figure 3.8 illustration © Marion Weissingler Figure 3.9 © Luc Mounier xix

xx

Figure Credits

Figure 3.10 adapted from Tallet et al. (2014) Figure 3.13 © Luc Mounier Figure 3.16 © Karine Portier (horse) and Luc Mounier Figure 3.17 © adapted from Gleerup et al. (2015) Figure 3.18 © UMR Herbivores, CARAIBE team Figure 3.24 © Christophe Maître/INRAE Figure 3.25 © Luc Mounier Figure 3.26 © Cécile Bourguet/ETRE Figure 3.27 © Démarche Bouv’Innov, Institut de l’élevage et al., www.bouvinnov.fr. Figure 3.28 © Gérard Amstoutz/Mirus Figure 3.29 © Cécile Bourguet/ETRE Edited by Sylvie Blanchard Editing: Juliette Blanchet Design: Paul Mounier-Piron

1 Understanding Animal Welfare

General Introduction Since the dawn of domestication, the history of humans and animals has been closely intertwined. And for many authors from Antiquity onwards, the fact that animals are sentient is self-evident. In the Age of Enlightenment, JeanJacques Rousseau, in his Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men, in 1755, already referred to animals as sentient beings. However, recognition of this sentience and consideration for the welfare of animals remained marginal until the middle of the 20th century. The principles to be respected in order to guarantee their welfare were set out in the second half of the 20th century in Great Britain, firstly with the work by Russell and Burch in 1959 on the use of animals for experimental purposes (The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique), and then via the Brambell Report, in 1965, on farm animals. In France, it was the 1976 law that really set animal protection policy in motion. Some 40 years later, the welfare of animals – whether farmed, used in research, kept in zoos and circuses or kept as pets – has become a major concern for consumers and the general public, as can be seen in the media, regulations, research, the development of more animal-friendly products, and the development of training courses in educational establishments or for professionals.

This demand for improved living conditions for farm animals and new scientific knowledge, particularly about the sentience of animals, requires changes in practices at all stages of the production chain, from breeding to transport to slaughter. This change must necessarily take place within an inclusive approach, which does not pit the various players against each other and which takes into account the welfare of farmers as well as the preservation of the environment. This is the ‘one welfare’ concept (derived from the ‘one health’ concept), characterized by a global approach that benefits animals, humans and the environment, all three of which are closely linked. A limiting factor in the implementation of this concept, and more generally in improving animal welfare on farms, may be the lack of understanding between the various stakeholders, who do not always put the same definitions behind certain concepts. This is all the more the case given that, until recently, animal welfare concepts were not, or hardly ever, taught in agricultural colleges, veterinary schools or agricultural engineering schools, where zootechnics was the main subject taught. Nor is it always easy to know how to assess welfare, or what action can be taken to improve it. It was with this in mind that training in animal welfare was developed. To disseminate these concepts to as many people as possible, an MOOC on farm animal welfare

©2024 CAB International. Understanding, Assessing and Improving Farm Animal Welfare (ed. Luc Mounier) DOI: 10.1079/9781800628045.0001

1

2

Understanding Animal Welfare

was designed in 2018 and a series of three booklets was produced in French, and published as a single volume here in English. This first part of the series sets out the theoretical concepts relating to animal welfare, so that all those involved – livestock farming professionals, members of animal protection associations, scientists, trainers, but also the general public – use a common language and share the same basis of understanding. Parts 2 and 3 focus more on concrete actions. The second part presents the indicators that can be used to assess animal welfare, how to measure them in the field and how to combine them to obtain an overall assessment of welfare. Finally, the third part looks at ways of improving the welfare of animals, for example in their environment (physical or social), their relationship with humans, the management of painful practices, transport and slaughter. The three parts will provide readers with the knowledge they need to understand the concept of animal welfare, its assessment (in the light of current scientific knowledge) and its improvement, enabling them to take a step back from certain situations. The main examples given in the book relate to farm animals (cattle, pigs, poultry etc.), but the concept of welfare and all the principles presented can be applied to any animal under human responsibility, such as pets, sports animals, laboratory animals, zoo animals or circus animals. The book has been written by a team of scientists who have been working on animal welfare for many years.

Introduction to Part 1 The aim of this first part is to provide a theoretical basis for a better understanding of the concept of animal welfare. It presents: –

–

the philosophical and societal considerations of animal welfare, and the way in which this issue is taken into account by the various players in society (from the general public to professionals, including animal protection associations and institutional players); the main historical stages in the consideration of animal welfare. The founding texts,

–

–

–

some of which were written more than 50 years ago, continue to form the basis of current thinking; the genesis of modern regulatory texts, particularly at European level, from which most French law is derived; the scientifc basis for the sentient and conscious nature of farm animals. They are at the heart of the moral consideration they should enjoy. The sentience of animals also makes it possible to understand their reactions to farming conditions and why they may feel good or bad; the various defnitions of animal welfare, which depend on the conceptual and historical context of their authors. The definition recently proposed by the French National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety (Anses) incorporates the most recent scientifc data on the sentience and conscience of farm animals.

1.1 Contemporary Societal Expectations in Terms of Animal Welfare Societal expectations regarding animal welfare are presented in four sections. The first section shows that consumers are very concerned about the welfare of farm animals. Then we present the two main factors that may explain the change in public expectations regarding animal welfare. In the third section, we look at the animal protection associations, which play an important role in the debate and in action. Finally, we will note that animal welfare is also increasingly taken into account by institutional players and by livestock and food professionals. 1.1.1 High expectations from consumers The welfare of farm animals is a subject that is very much in the public eye and in the media these days, most often to denounce the conditions in which animals are reared, transported and slaughtered, or even to call into question the concept of animal rearing and domestication. This media visibility reflects public interest in the subject. This is what emerges from a European

Contemporary Societal Expectations in Terms of Animal Welfare

survey of consumer attitudes to animal welfare, known as the ‘Special Eurobarometer 442’, the third edition of which was published in 20161 (Fig. 1.1). The survey polled 27,672 citizens in the 28 Member States, including 1038 French citizens2. What does this survey say? –

–

–

When asked ‘How important do you think it is to protect the welfare of farm animals?’, 94% of European citizens said that protecting the welfare of farm animals is important, and this figure rises to 98% in France. What is more, 82% of Europeans surveyed believe that farm animals should be better protected than they are at present, and this fgure rises to 88% in France. Finally, almost 59% of Europeans, and 68% of French citizens, say they are prepared to pay more for animal welfare. This is known as ‘willingness to pay’, and for 3% of respondents it can mean up to a 20% increase in the price of goods.

Expectations regarding animal welfare and its improvement are therefore high among consumers, some of whom are prepared to pay more for products that are more respectful of animal welfare. 1.1.2 Factors in the evolution of societal demand Two main factors can explain the growing demand for animal welfare to be taken into

How important do you think it is to protect the welfare of farm animals? Rather not important 3 Quite important 37

Not at all important 1

Don't know 2

account: changes in the relationship between humans and animals, and developments in animal husbandry. At the beginning of the 20th century, 42% of workers were in the agricultural sector, and 59% of the French population lived in rural areas, where farming was mainly mixed farming and livestock rearing. In this type of farming, people were in frequent contact with animals. Human–animal relations were determined by utilitarian and pragmatic functions, with humans looking after the animals and the animals giving their produce, or even their lives, in exchange. This is what Catherine and Raphaël Larrère (1997) call the ‘domestic contract’. From the 1950s onwards, major changes took place in lifestyles, with the result that, in 2010, only 3.3% of the working population were still employed in agriculture, and 85% of the French population lived in urban areas (Table 1.1; Fig. 1.2). A major upheaval has therefore occurred in the relationship between humans and animals, particularly farm animals. Consumers have distanced themselves from animals, to the point where few of them now have any contact with farmed animals. As a result, consumers’ approach to farm animals is no longer utilitarian or pragmatic. Food products that are reminiscent of live animals (calf ’s head, pig’s trotters etc.) are less popular today than those in which the animal’s body is not, or is less, identifiable because it has been processed. Pets are now the main animal reference point for the public, whose relationships with other animals are virtual and

Do you think that, in general, the welfare of farm animals in [our country] should be better protected than it currently is? No, not at all 2

Very important 57

3

No, probably not 10

Don't know 6 Yes, absolutely 44

Yes, probably 38 Base: all respondents (N=27,672)

Fig. 1.1. Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare in 2016, in percentages. (Source: Special Eurobarometer 442, European Commission)

4

Understanding Animal Welfare

Table 1.1. Changes in French lifestyles and types of farming.

Proportion of the population working in agriculture Proportion of the population living in rural areas Type of farming

(a)

1900

2010

42%

3.3%

59%

15%

Mainly mixed-crop and livestock farming

Increasingly specialized livestock farming

(b)

Fig. 1.2. Considerable change in French livestock farming over the last century. After the Second World War, livestock farming underwent major changes, moving from small-scale, ‘mixed crop-livestock’ farming (a), combining several types of livestock production, to larger-scale farming, generally specializing in one type of livestock production (b).

idealized as they appear in children’s books, cartoons and animated films. This idealization encourages a biased psychological projection, because it is disconnected from the real conditions in which animals are reared. At the same time as society was changing, the conditions and practices of livestock farming were also evolving towards intensification and industrialization. At the end of the Second World War, faced with the need to feed the population at affordable prices, zootechnics developed, aimed at maximizing the productivity of livestock farms. Farmers, vets and technicians were asked to produce more at lower cost. This demand was accompanied by the mechanization of agriculture to intensify production and make it more profitable with fewer people; the densification of farms to increase the number

of animals produced per surface area and the increase in the size of herds. In most cases, these developments have led to a considerable impoverishment of animals’ living environment. This transformation of livestock farming has also been accompanied by intense genetic selection. Between 1965 and 1995, i.e. in just 30 years, the growth rate of broiler chickens or the quantity of milk produced by Holstein cows – the ultimate dairy breed – doubled, the growth rate of cattle and pigs increased by 50% and egg production per hen rose by 20% (Fig. 1.3). Other factors can also be mentioned, such as the growing recognition by scientists of the sentience and consciousness of animals (see 1.4); the rise in concern about pain and quality of life, not only for animals but also for humans;

Contemporary Societal Expectations in Terms of Animal Welfare

Litres of milk 10 000

5

Number of eggs 300

+ 100 %

+ 20 %

5 000 200 1965

1965

1995

Annual milk production (Holstein cow)

1995

Average egg production/hen in the first 12 months of laying

Fig. 1.3. Increase in animal productivity due to genetic selection and the development of zootechnics.

and, finally, the growing control of the state and the law over civil society, hence the increasing development of regulations on animal husbandry conditions. People’s idealization of their relationship with animals, and the knowledge they have acquired about animal sentience compared with the living conditions of animals on farms, have led to a growing expectation in society for greater consideration to be given to the welfare of farm animals. This expectation is reflected, for example, in changes in egg production methods and in the way the French buy eggs; fewer and fewer eggs from caged hens are being purchased.

1.1.3 The role of animal protection associations Animal protection groups were the first to denounce the poor living conditions of farm animals. They have been active for many years. The first organization of this type was the British Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSCPA), founded in 1824 and officially approved by Queen Victoria in 1840.

France followed suit in 1845 with the Société protectrice des animaux (SPA), founded by Dr Étienne Pariset. Created in 1980 on the initiative of the RSCPA, the Eurogroup for Animals, which currently brings together 46 organizations across Europe, is one of the longest-established associations in Brussels to lobby the European Commission. It has played a considerable role in the preparation of European legislation. Among these groups, there are two main types of association: –

the so-called ‘reformist’ or ‘welfarist’ associations, which aim to improve the lives of farm animals, but without calling into question livestock farming itself. Their aim is to reform livestock farming to ensure greater respect for animals. Their ideology is based on a utilitarian relationship between humans and animals, with human duties and responsibilities towards animals. These are associations that take account of scientific expertise in order to change the practices that are most detrimental to animal welfare. These movements have a legalistic approach, meaning that they work with institutions and engage in dialogue with

6

Understanding Animal Welfare

Trends in egg production methods and egg purchases in France The way laying hens are reared is a good illustration of how society’s expectations of animal welfare have evolved and of the role played by a number of players: • Regulations: Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens (including the use of enriched cages) • Action by animal protection associations to limit cage farming (with the public, public authorities and industrialists) • Obligation to inform consumers about how hens are reared by marking eggs (since 2004) • Consumer willingness to pay a higher price (Fig. 1.4a) for eggs produced under conditions that are more respectful of hens’ welfare (free-range or organic farming). • The industry has responded by adapting farming methods to consumer demand by reducing the number of hens kept in cages (Fig. 1.4b). (a)

(b)

3

%

ADVANCED CAGES – 13%

50

X Code written on the eggs 1

40 0 30

x 2.2

42%

ORGANIC +3%

OUTDOOR + 2% 1 LABEL ROUGE – 1%

20 10

2 CAGE FREE OR BARN + 9%

19% 2008

2018

Share of hens in alternative farms

0

18 20 20 20

18 20 20 20

18 20 20 20

18 20 20 20

18 20 20 20

Share of in-store egg purchases in 2018 and over the first 4 months of 2020

Fig. 1.4. Trends in egg production methods and egg purchases by the French. Although eggs produced in cages (which are now fitted out) are still in the majority, particularly for the agri-food industry and mass catering, alternatives to cages are making steady progress and now account for more than half of the eggs bought by households.

–

professionals by promoting good practice. Finally, they inform the public rather than denounce extreme situations. Their motto could be: ‘Eat fewer animal products, but better-quality ones’, by promoting products that respect animal welfare through, for example, the introduction of labels or animal welfare labelling; ‘animalist’ or ‘abolitionist’ associations, which reject, a priori, any exploitation of animals and therefore livestock farming as

such. Their moral position is based on animal rights. They stem from animal liberation movements whose aim is to abolish livestock farming. Their actions are generally aimed at denouncing abuses and sounding the alarm, with highly committed communication, particularly via social networks. Their relations with institutions are delicate, and often impossible with professionals. Their motto could be: ‘From vegetarianism to veganism’, given that

Contemporary Societal Expectations in Terms of Animal Welfare

veganism is a lifestyle that consists of not consuming or using any product derived from animals, from their exploitation or tested on them. It should be noted that the associations mainly position themselves as abolitionists or welfarists, but depending on the subject they may adopt different positions. So the dividing line is not always clearly defined. There are also associations dedicated to rescuing animals in distress or recovering abandoned or mistreated animals, which then offer them for adoption or place them in a shelter. They all play an important role, whether in the debate within civil society or in action, as whistleblowers for situations of mistreatment or as lobbyists with institutions or manufacturers. They help to implement the growing social demand for animal welfare, particularly in livestock farming, transport and slaughterhouses.

1.1.4 The growing awareness of animal welfare among institutions and professionals As a result of pressure from animal protection associations and the increasingly high expectations expressed by consumers, professionals and institutional players have also taken action. As a result, regulations have evolved and had a clear impact on improving the living conditions of animals. As far as animal welfare is concerned, national regulations largely derive from European texts, which have been produced since the late 1960s and then transposed into French law (see 1.3). It is not enough to have the right regulations in place; they also need to be applied on the ground. The French Ministry of Agriculture has therefore published a national strategy for 2016–20203 highlighting ‘animal welfare at the heart of a sustainable activity’, reflecting the government’s recognition of the importance of this issue for agricultural production and its development. This national strategy is broken down into a number of actions, the first of which is to share knowledge and promote

7

innovation. To this end, the National Reference Centre for Animal Welfare4 (CNR BEA) was set up in 2017 with the aim of co-ordinating a documentation and information platform, providing scientific and technical expertise, and running a resource centre dedicated to training. The centre brings together the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment (INRAE), Anses, the agricultural technical institutes and the national veterinary schools. The animal welfare partnership chair located at VetAgro Sup5 was created in 2018 to support the CNR BEA, particularly as part of its mission to provide information and training on animal welfare. Alongside institutional players, professionals from the world of agriculture are also very active. They are now drawing up guides to good practice, for example to improve animal protection in slaughterhouses by limiting the stress and suffering of animals. Similarly, most animal sectors, farming unions, co-operatives and veterinary groups (Ordre national, technical groups etc.) have set up dedicated committees to improve animal welfare practices. Finally, numerous quality initiatives throughout the agri-food chain that take animal welfare into account have been put in place by manufacturers. In economics, benchmarking is the creation of a reference to measure various performances. Such a benchmark exists for animal welfare6. It is published every year. It describes how companies in the food sector manage this issue for farm animals and communicate on the subject to their customers (processors, distributors, the general public etc.). It also assesses the progress made since the first benchmark report in 2012. This benchmark therefore makes it possible to monitor the progress made by food industry professionals in taking animal welfare into account. More recently, in 2018, an animal welfare label was introduced for the broiler chicken sector following a collaboration between three animal protection associations and a distribution group. This label informs consumers about the level of welfare during rearing of the chicken whose meat they are buying. There are five levels of welfare, and the level is determined by an independent external audit based on 230 criteria.

8

Understanding Animal Welfare

Wellness initiatives in 2020 Numerous animal welfare initiatives took place in 2020. At the beginning of the year, for example, the French Ministry of Agriculture announced a government plan to protect and improve animal welfare, with the aim of gradually banning painful practices in livestock farming (a ban on the live castration of piglets and the crushing of chicks by the end of 2021) and making Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funding conditional on compliance with animal welfare standards. On 2 July, the Shared Initiative Referendum on Animal Welfare was launched, with proposals for measures such as a ban on cage farming, fur farms and an end to intensive livestock farming. In September, 141 members of parliament supported this referendum, and more than 650,000 citizens had registered. Also in September, the government’s recovery plan earmarked €250 million for the ‘animal sectors: modernisation, health safety and animal welfare’ section. The Ministry for Ecological Transition has announced a number of measures, including the gradual end to the presence of wild animals in travelling circuses and the end to mink farming for fur in France. And two bills, one by Cédric Villani and the other by Loïc Dombreval, have been tabled to improve animal welfare.

Summary Animal welfare, particularly that of farm animals, has become a major social issue that affects all levels of society and therefore involves many players: • farmers, who are in daily contact with their animals and feel the pressure on the farming world; • citizens as consumers, who can influence developments through their purchasing actions, but also through their involvement in animal protection associations; • animal protection associations, some of which act as whistleblowers, and others which work with other stakeholders to find pragmatic solutions for improvement; • manufacturers, who adapt their production to consumer demand; and • the institutions, notably through regulations or the organization of dedicated structures, such as the CNR BEA. There are two main reasons for this change in public expectations regarding animal welfare: – a change in the relationship between citizens and animals, with citizens having distanced themselves from the world of livestock farming over the last few decades and now having pets as their main reference point; – an excessive intensification of animal rearing conditions which no longer correspond to people’s current perception of the conditions in which animals should be reared. Table 1.2. Two different positions taken by animal protection associations. Reform associations

Abolitionist associations

Position in relation to livestock farming

No questioning, but a desire to improve animal rearing conditions

Moral considerations

Based on utilitarian relations between humans and animals, with rights and duties of humans towards animals Legalistic activity, based on scientific expertise and focused on promoting practices that are most favourable to animal welfare Eat fewer animal products, but of better quality and more respectful of animal welfare

Rejection of the exploitation of animals and of livestock farming as such Based on the rights of animals and their liberation

Types of action

Credo

Denouncing abuses and generalizing breeding conditions From vegetarianism to veganism

The Historical Development of the Concept of Animal Welfare

1.2 The Historical Development of the Concept of Animal Welfare The relationship between humans and animals has evolved along with humanity, particularly through domestication, and is therefore part of human history. Expressions of interest in the fate of animals have been a feature of human history since antiquity. Aristotle (4th century BCE) was already wondering about the status of animals, which should live and experience pleasure. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) asserted that animals have a soul and humans should not behave cruelly towards them. The history of animal welfare can be analysed from three angles: – –

–

human moral concern for animals has deep roots in the philosophical tradition; major advances in taking account of the welfare of animals dependent on humans have been made since the second half of the 20th century, mainly thanks to a number of seminal texts; and regulations protecting animals have kept pace with these developments, mainly within the framework of the European institutions. 1.2.1

There are three main philosophical and ethical approaches to animal welfare: –

–

In the philosophical tradition

Long before the current considerations, a whole philosophical tradition in the Age of Enlightenment was already agreed on the sentient nature of animals, which should therefore be the subject of moral concern. As early as 1755, Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote in his Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes: ‘It seems, indeed, that if I am obliged to do no harm to my fellow man, it is not so much because he is a reasonable being as because he is a sentient being, a quality which, being common to beast and man, must at least give the former the right not to be mistreated unnecessarily by the latter’. At the same time, in 1789, the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote a phrase that has been quoted many times since: ‘The question is not “Can they reason?” or “Can they speak?” but “Can they suffer?”’, referring to the capacity of animals to feel emotion.

9

–

the utilitarian movement, initiated by Jeremy Bentham. Today, this movement is embodied by Peter Singer (2012). From a utilitarian perspective, the starting point for ethical questioning is the existence of animal suffering. Many animals, and in particular the farm animals we are concerned with here, are sentient and conscious beings – two dimensions combined in the term sentient-sentience being the faculty of subjective experience – and therefore capable of suffering (see 1.4). For utilitarians, suffering is an evil and happiness is a good. Utilitarianism prescribes that we act in such a way as to optimize happiness (or welfare) and therefore minimize the suffering of the population concerned. This is what is known as an ‘anti-speciesist’ approach, meaning that belonging to a given species is not a discriminating criterion for moral consideration; all that matters here is the capacity to suffer and experience welfare; deontologism, whose main modern proponent is Tom Regan (Animal Rights, 2013), attributes moral rights to animals. The holders of these rights are characterized as ‘subjects-of-a-life’, because of their sentience, their capacity for self-awareness and projection, and their desires. The aim is therefore to recognize the inherent value of individuals, who consequently have the fundamental right to be treated with respect, i.e. never to be treated merely as a means to the ends of others. In France, this trend is well represented by Florence Burgat (2006, 2012); another philosophical trend is based on the notion that humans have a duty towards animals. Its main proponent, Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher of the 18th century, wrote, in 1795: ‘The human subject as a rational subject must refrain from cruelty and in general from any behaviour that would lead him to degrade his dignity and his capacity for self-control by giving in to his impulses’. So it is clear that, for this movement, it is, above all,

10

Understanding Animal Welfare

humans who are at the heart of the issue and the debate. These theoretical orientations intersect with the main currents of animal welfare associations described in 1.1: –

–

reformism, or ‘welfarism’, which aims to improve the condition of animals for which humans are responsible, and farm animals in particular, but without contesting the principle of this human supervision. In general, utilitarians and advocates of duties towards animals are reformists; abolitionism. Unlike the reformist movement, the abolitionist movement contests the very principle of livestock farming and, more generally, any appropriation and exploitation of animals by humans. It therefore discredits approaches to animal welfare, since these help to maintain animal farming, which is intrinsically immoral from their point of view. Deontologists are generally abolitionists insofar as farming cannot, in their view, respect the rights and sentience of animals.

Today’s various associations position themselves as more or less extreme abolitionists or as reformists, bearing in mind that abolitionists sometimes adopt reformist positions and that reformists are abolitionists in certain practices (bullfighting, for example). 1.2.2

Key texts

In addition to the philosophical tradition, a number of more recent texts are considered to be foundational in the consideration of animal welfare: –

In 1959, Russell and Burch published a major book on the ethical treatment of laboratory animals: Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. They addressed issues such as the consciousness of animals and its repercussions on the suffering they experience. In this text, the biologists put forward a key argument for the utilitarian and ethical treatment of laboratory animals. They propose replacing animals in research where alternative methods exist, reducing the number of animals used, and refining experiments to minimize animal suffering

–

–

and discomfort. These principles are now well known as the 3Rs rule (replace, reduce, refine) and they remain a pillar of ethical reasoning for the use of animals in scientific research, combined with an assessment of the balance of harm (to animals)/ benefit (to humans)7; As far as farm animals are concerned, the benchmark book was published by Ruth Harrison in the UK in 1964: Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming Industry, reissued in 2013 to mark the fiftieth anniversary of its original publication. In it, this militant author denounces the living conditions of animals in intensive farming. Following the publication of this book, which had a major impact in Great Britain, a government committee called the Brambell Committee, named after its chairman, was set up. Its remit was to investigate the welfare of farm animals and to define minimum standards for acceptable welfare in order to meet animals’ basic needs; The Brambell Report, published the following year, laid the foundations for modern concepts of animal welfare. Its contribution was twofold: ◦ first, a conceptual contribution: ‘Welfare is a term that embraces both the physical and mental condition of the animal [...] any attempt to assess welfare must therefore take into account scientific knowledge concerning the feelings of animals that can be deduced from their structure and functioning as well as from their behaviour.’ This says it all about the sentience of animals and ethical and practical reasoning about them, even though it was 1965; ◦ Second, it proposes a method for defning the conditions for animal welfare. This report, which focuses on the expression of behaviour, states that animals must have suffcient space to express fve fundamental behaviours: standing up, lying down, turning round, extending their limbs and grooming all parts of their body. Before such practices were banned, in 1997, in Europe, for veal calves aged over eight

Regulations in Europe, France and the Rest of the World

–

weeks, they could be kept in individual, relatively narrow pens throughout their growth, and therefore had diffculty expressing these behaviours; in particular turning round or stretching their limbs. This was also the case for tethered sows. These concepts of animal welfare have made it possible to improve the conditions in which animals are reared, in particular to enable them to better express their behaviour. This consideration of behavioural freedoms has been extended to all the factors involved in animal welfare, which have been grouped together under the term ‘fve freedoms’, defnitively drafted by the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC, 2009). They are described in detail in 1.5; Two other books have had a major impact on the development of thinking on animal welfare: Le stress en élevage intensif (Dantzer and Mormède, 1979) and Animal Suffering (Dawkins, 1983).

For over 40 years now, all the issues surrounding the welfare of farm animals have been available and have fed into the regulations that have been drawn up, particularly at European level, even though their impact on the ground has long been limited.

1.2.3 Developments in European and French regulations Against this backdrop of philosophical and ethical reflection, animal welfare regulations have evolved (Fig. 1.5): –

In the legal tradition, the animal was considered only as a thing in the service of man. Until the 19th century, animals enjoyed no protection in terms of their qualities as living, sentient beings. The first animal protection law in France was the Grammont Law of 2 July 1850, which made it a criminal offence to mistreat domestic animals in public in an abusive manner. As you can see, the purpose of the law severely limited its application. In fact, in the minds of the authors, it was more a question of protecting public morality than the

–

–

11

animal itself, since only ill-treatment in public was punishable; It was at European level, in the late 1960s, that legislation for the protection and welfare of animals was developed, under the impetus of animal protection associations. From being ‘marketable goods’ in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, animals became ‘sentient beings’ in the Treaties of Amsterdam (1997) and Lisbon (2007): ‘When formulating and implementing the Union’s policy on agriculture, fsheries, transport, the internal market, research and technological development, and space, the Union and the Member States shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings’; In French law, the frst signifcant law on animal welfare was that of 10 July 1976 on the protection of nature, which stipulates in Article 9: ‘As all animals are sentient beings, they must be kept by their owners in conditions compatible with the biological requirements of their species’. This article was subsequently codifed in article L214-1 of the French Rural and Maritime Fishing Code, an article that is now well known thanks to the animal protection association that bears the same name. Subsequently, French law was essentially composed of the transposition of European texts promulgated at the end of the last century. The most recent legislative development was the Act of 16 February 2015, which introduced the concept of animals as living beings ‘endowed with sentience’ into the Civil Code. This sentence is supplemented by the following: ‘Subject to the laws that protect them, animals are subject to the regime of property’, which limits its scope, but nevertheless refects a development in the law towards recognition of the legal personality of animals.

1.3

Regulations in Europe, France and the Rest of the World

This chapter explains the role of the European institutions and how they act to protect farm animals, and how these regulations are applied in the Member States, in addition to the texts drawn up

12

Understanding Animal Welfare

ANIMAL WELFARE TIMELINE: HIGHLIGHTS

1755

At the same time, Jeremy Bentham wrote: "The question is not can they reason?, nor can they speak?, but can they suffer? >>>

1789 1824

Grammont Law, first animal protection law.

The Brambell Report is the basis of the 5 Freedoms principle and modern animal welfare assessment.

1975 1976

EUROPEAN REGULATIONS From being marketable goods since 1957, animals became sentient beings in the Treaty of Amsterdam.

1997

EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES The 1998 directive imposes minimum standards on housing and practices. From 2007, an obligation of results and indicators on animals gradually appeared.

1998

Two proposed laws are being discussed in France, a law against animal suffering and a law aimed at improving the welfare of companion animals.

THE FOUNDING TEXTS Russell and Burch outline the 3Rs for the ethical treatment of laboratory animals.

1964 1965

Peter Singer publishes Animal Liberation which advocates rights for animals.

Creation of the RSCPA, the 1st animal protection association in the world.

1850 1959

Ruth Harrison denounces intensive farming in Animal Machines.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITION During the Enlightenment, the notion of a sentient animal appeared in the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

2006

2020

FRENCH REGULATIONS The notion of being sentient appears in the law of July 10, 1976 of the rural code: Article L214.1: "Any animal being a sentient being must be placed by its owner in conditions compatible with the biological imperatives of its species. >>>

2006-2010: European Welfare Quality project. 2009: Creation of an animal welfare portal by the United Nations for Food and Agriculture (FAO). 2015-2020: France’s strategy for animal welfare. 2017: Creation in France of the National Reference Center on animal welfare (CNR BEA) and the animal welfare chair (VetAgro Sup) in partnership with the ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Fig. 1.5. Key dates in the consideration and regulation of animal welfare.

in France. Finally, it presents the initiatives taken worldwide to adopt animal health and welfare standards based on the ‘five freedoms’ principle.

regulations: the Council of Europe and the European Union (EU). The Council of Europe

1.3.1

European regulations

Two complementary organizations are involved in drawing up and implementing European

STRUCTURE AND OPERATION.

The Council of Europe has 47 Member States, from Iceland to Azerbaijan. Its aims are to promote democracy and respect for fundamental, civil and political rights

Regulations in Europe, France and the Rest of the World

13

Interview with Jean-Luc Guichet by Pierre Mormède Jean-Luc Guichet, you are a lecturer and researcher in philosophy at the Université de Picardie. You have worked extensively on philosophical concepts of animals and animality. I’d like you to give us some food for thought on the ethics of the relationship between humans and animals, at a time when this issue has become a major focus of public debate. How do you explain the considerable rise in power of the so-called ‘animal cause’? This seems to me to be linked to the profound contemporary changes in our relationship with animals, driven mainly by four factors: the rise in sentience and the rejection of death and pain; the theoretical continuity between humans and animals brought about by science; the practical discontinuity caused by the remoteness of farming and slaughtering areas; and the industrialization of farming, leading to a ‘de-animalization’ of the animal, which is increasingly artificialized as part of a production process.An explosive cocktail which, combined with the environmental crisis, is leading to radical questioning of our ancestral relationship with the exploitation of animals. An important question in the debate is whether man is an animal like any other and, associated with this, whether it is relevant to talk about ‘animals’ when they are so extraordinarily diverse? It’s a question that, in a way, carries its own answer, because even if man is an animal, the simple fact of knowing that he is one distinguishes him. Being aware of what we are gives us a different relationship to what we are, one that may be critical.Affirming that we are only an animal is therefore somewhat contradictory and shows that we cannot reduce ourselves to that. But it’s essential to know that we are also animals – it’s our very link to the living world. On the other hand, there is a current tendency to deny differences, despite all the talk about them. It is not respectful to want to identify a being with others at all costs.Animals are different, too, as species and as individuals. We need to stop lumping everything together under the single term ‘animal’, which is precisely what is profoundly anthropocentric. And human beings are different, too. Recognizing these differences is essential from an ethical point of view, because otherwise it would lead us to the absurdity of treating an amoeba and a chimpanzee in the same way. Can you love your dog and kill your pig at the same time? Some people talk about ‘cognitive dissonance’. A cognitive dissonance points to an obvious inconsistency in a representation, except for the subject concerned. Analysis reveals that, in general, these inconsistencies have the function of preserving an individual’s psychological coherence in the face of contradictions.This is clearly the case in our relationship with animals, as it is with many things... But the uses we make of animals, however different, also have common bases: the appropriation of the animal; the manipulation of the species, in particular through the creation of non-natural breeds; the right to kill that man grants himself, because, in the event of danger, for example, a dog can be 'put down' by a vet.Within these limits, there are indeed different uses for animals with comparable capacities – particularly cognitive capacities – such as dogs and pigs.And sometimes even within the same species, for example rabbits. On the other hand, these common bases also show that the treatment of some animals and others can be governed by common ethical standards, i.e. respect for the animal, its sentience and its integrity. Slaughter, for example. There is now talk of producing meat by cell culture. Do you think this option will solve the problem? This prospect of laboratory meat certainly has an added ethical value, since it saves the life of the animal. It’s the idea of ethically pure meat...the paradoxical idea of natural ethics through the most extreme artifice. But, above all, we can ask ourselves whether, behind this appearance of a radical break, synthetic meat is not, in fact, part of the logic of increasing dissociation between animal and human that characterizes our modernity. On the other hand, it echoes the unbridled spending on meat through the consumption of animals.The process is simply reversed: instead of this excess being destruction, it is production. What can be produced indefinitely in this way no longer has any subjective value and no longer commands respect. Just as synthetic meat is out of soil, it is out of animals. It is no longer structured and enclosed within a living organism, it is neither alive nor dead, it is formless. It is not meat that has possessed the unity of Continued

14

Understanding Animal Welfare

Continued. an organism that has lived and felt. Mere animate matter not worked by life, it has not been muscle. It’s as if we had to lose our relationship with life and death at the same time. What are the consequences for the human–animal relationship? How can it be maintained if it has no economic basis? The disappearance of natural meat seems to foreshadow the disappearance of a consistent relationship with animals.

Summary The recognition of the sentient nature of animals, capable of feeling pain and suffering, and, more recently, of their conscious nature, is the basis of moral considerations with regard to them. Three main philosophical and ethical currents have developed concerning the relationship between humans and animals: utilitarianism, which emphasizes this sensitivity – or sentience for Anglo-Saxon authors – and advocates optimizing the welfare of all sentient beings, whatever the species concerned; deontologism, which attributes rights to ‘subject-of-a-life’ beings, on account of their sentience, their capacity for self-awareness and projection, and their desires; and the recognition of a duty on the part of humans towards animals, whereby human subjects must not degrade their dignity by behaving unworthily towards them. These philosophical reflections have given rise to two major options with regard to animal welfare: reformism, which advocates improving the condition of animals without challenging the principle of placing them under human guardianship; and abolitionism, which challenges the very principle of animal farming and, more generally, any appropriation and exploitation of animals by humans. Societal and regulatory developments owe a great deal to a number of seminal texts that still inform our thinking today, in particular the 3Rs rule (replace, reduce, refine) for an ethical approach to the use of animals in biological and medical research, and the Brambell Report on the conditions under which production animals are reared. It was only at the end of the last century that animals were considered by the law to be sentient beings, a concept that underpinned the tremendous development of regulations on their welfare.

in Europe, and to seek common solutions to societal issues such as bioethics, cloning and animal welfare. On welfare issues, each member is represented by a member of the Ministry of Agriculture8. The Council of Europe issues international conventions and treaties, based on general principles, aimed at adopting common provisions between member countries. Once a convention has been signed by the member states of the Council of Europe, it is ratifed and enters into force in each member state, and then becomes law in each state that has ratified it. This procedure is not compulsory and each state is free to sign the conventions it wishes. The working method adopted by the Council of Europe is based on close collaboration with all stakeholders, both non-governmental organizations and representatives of relevant national and European interest groups, whether associations, trade unions or lobbying groups (Federation of

Veterinarians of Europe, scientific societies, farmer’ professional federations, Eurogroup for Animals, Compassion in World Farming, etc.). ACHIEVEMENTS. The frst European Convention for the Protection of Animals, signed in 1968, targeted the international transport of live animals, from the preparation of the animals for loading to their unloading, with special conditions for transport by road, sea, air and rail (Council of Europe ETS No. 065, 19689). Only 20 member states have signed this convention, which was revised in 2003. The second convention, signed in 1976, concerned the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, giving general principles for the breeding, care and housing of animals, particularly in intensive farming systems (Council of Europe ETS No. 087-197610). As of 17 April 2020, 33 states had ratified and implemented the convention in their country; one country had

Regulations in Europe, France and the Rest of the World

only signed the convention; and 13 countries had not signed it and had not taken any action. The Council of Europe then turned its attention to the protection of animals at slaughter (Council of Europe ETS No. 102-197911). This convention was signed in 1979 and revised in 1982. It can also issue recommendations that may be adopted by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers and sent to the governments of member states. These states can then validate and transpose them into their respective national laws. Recommendations for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes have been adopted for cattle (1988), sheep and goats (1992), hens (1986 then 1995), ostriches and rheas (1997), fur-bearing animals (1990 then 1999), ducks and geese (1999), turkeys (2001), pigs (2004) and fish (2005). The conventions have had a considerable impact on the member states of the Council of Europe. The Council also works closely with the EU, as an EU representative has a permanent seat at the Council of Europe, and the conventions adopted often form the basis for European directives. The European Union STRUCTURE AND OPERATION. The EU currently comprises 27 Member States. For animal welfare issues, the Member States are represented by a member of the Ministry of Agriculture12.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

15

The EU issues two types of regulatory document (Fig. 1.6): –

–

regulations, which are binding legislative acts that must be implemented in their entirety throughout the European Union; and directives – legislative acts setting targets for all EU countries. However, each country is free to develop its own measures to achieve them. To do this, each member state must transpose them into national law by means of implementing decrees. Unlike the recommendations of the Council of Europe, the transposition of directives into the national law of each member state is mandatory.

The drafting of a directive follows a lengthy procedure, passing through several bodies before its final adoption. This procedure is the responsibility of the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety (DG Health), one of the European Commission’s administrative departments. When the EU wishes to adopt a directive, DG Health begins by gathering independent scientific opinions on the issue. To do this, it calls on the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which operates independently of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the EU Member States. EFSA has several permanent groups of scientific experts, one of whom specializes in animal health and welfare. The role of this

EUROPEAN UNION

MEMBER STATES

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

47 Member States Conventions, recommendations Conventions : principles, signature but ratification not obligatory.

27 Member States Regulations, guidelines

Application decrees

Transposition into national law

Recommendations: regulatory transposition. Fig. 1.6. European structures involved in European regulation.

16

Understanding Animal Welfare

group of experts, which is sometimes enlarged to include other non-permanent experts, is to provide a detailed and objective scientific analysis. This consists of a bibliographical summary of the current state of scientific knowledge, an analysis of the risks associated with the issue raised (Is the problem serious? Does it occur frequently? etc.) and a report with recommendations. The final report is submitted to EFSA management, which forwards it to DG Health. DG Health will then draft a proposal for a directive. The Council of the EU, made up of the relevant ministers from each member state (the Ministers of Agriculture in the case of animal health and welfare), examines the proposal submitted to it and may make amendments. Once adopted by the Council, the text becomes a European directive that member states are obliged to transpose into national law, with implementation in the form of implementing decrees and a deadline set for each directive. The directives drawn up by the EU have been in force for decades and are very strict compared with the rules applied in other parts of the world. Over the years, the EU’s position on the status of animals has evolved from the Treaty of Rome (1957), in which animals were classed as commercial goods (in the same way as all agricultural products), to a protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) and then the Treaty of Lisbon (2007), in which it is specified that animals are sentient beings. Europe’s commitment to protecting animal species evolved considerably in the 1990s and 2000s with, for example, the banning of conventional cages for rearing laying hens, the improvement of transport conditions and the introduction of stricter rules on slaughter conditions. However, it remains heavily dependent on the programming of the CAP. In the general objectives of the 2020 CAP, the issue of welfare is mentioned in Article 6, which aims to improve the way in which EU agriculture meets society’s new requirements in terms of food and health (in particular for safe, nutritious and sustainable food), food waste and animal welfare. ACHIEVEMENTS. The directives adopted by the EU cover general aspects of animal protection and more specifc aspects relating to farming conditions for different species. They are in line with the conventions drawn up by the Council of

Europe (Table 1.3). For livestock species, the frst directive concerned the rearing conditions for laying hens in 1986 (revised in 1999). During the 1990s, several directives followed: on pigs (1991, revised in 2001, then in 2008), on veal calves (1991, revised in 1997), and, fnally, on broilers (2007). In 1998, a directive was issued on rearing conditions for all species, echoing the recommendations of the Council of Europe. Throughout this period, the first directives proposed minimum standards for housing and rearing practices, so these were obligations of means. From 2007 onwards, in the case of the broiler chickens directive, in addition to an obligation of means, an obligation of results was introduced, meaning that what was required was no longer simply compliance with a standard but a guarantee that the animal’s welfare would not be compromised. In practical terms, this means observing the presence, or absence, of pododermatitis in chickens, which can influence the authorized density, and not just compliance with a density of chickens per sq. m. SUPPORT FOR ANIMAL WELFARE RESEARCH.

As well as drafting regulations, the EU also has a policy of supporting research by funding projects aimed at improving animal welfare. For example, between 2006 and 2010, the Welfare Quality project® brought together a number of partners from different European countries to develop welfare assessment protocols for cattle, pigs and poultry. These validated protocols are now the reference bases on which all the initiatives to build assessment tools by players in the feld (IFIP, Itavi, Idele, IFCE technical institutes, research and development structures, Inaporc interprofession, Interbev, Anvol) and/or stakeholders such as the food distribution sector or non-governmental organizations (animal protection associations) have since been based. The Welfare Quality protocols® will be explained and will often be used as a reference in subsequent parts. The EU has defined a strategy to determine the projects to be funded and the broad guidelines for animal welfare. In the 2012–2015 programme13, it has set four development priorities: the use of scientifically-based welfare indicators, clear information for consumers, a European network of reference centres to facilitate exchanges and progress between member countries, and finally the requirement for professional skills in

Regulations in Europe, France and the Rest of the World

17

Table 1.3. Summary of the main conventions (Council of Europe) and European (EU) directives on the protection of farm animals. Target

Text

Object

Controls

Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 European Convention ETS No. 87 of 10 March 1976 Protocol amending ETS No. 145 of 6 February 1992 Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 European Convention ETS 65 of 13 December 1968, revised ETS No. 1936 November 2003 Directives 90/425/EEC, 91/496/EEC, 91/628/EEC, 95/29/EC EC Regulations No. 411/98 and No. 1/2005 European Convention STE 102 of 10 May 1979 Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993, amended in 2003 and 2005, repealed in 2009 EC regulation 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 Directives 86/113/EEC and 88/166/EC Revision of Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 Council Directive 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007

Official controls to ensure compliance with legislation Animal protection on farms

Breeding

Transport

Slaughter

Laying hens Broilers

Pigs

Calves

Directive 91/630/EEC of 19 November 1991 Revisions: • Directive 2001/88/EC of 23 October 2001 • Directive 2001/93/EC of 9 November 2001 • Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 Revision of Council Directive 97/2/EC of 20 January 1997 Revision of Council Directive 2008/119/EC of 18 December 2008

animal welfare that farmers must acquire through training schemes. Over the period 2016–2020, the strategy has focused on the need to increase the use of animal-centred, science-based indicators and to step up training in on-farm welfare assessment. As part of this strategy, a European platform on animal welfare was also set up in 2017, with missions focusing on three major aspects:

• • •

better application of EU rules on animal welfare, through the sharing of information, the implementation of best practice and the direct involvement of stakeholders; the formulation and implementation by companies of voluntary commitments to improve animal welfare; and promoting EU animal welfare standards on a global scale in order to enhance the market value of products.

Protection of animals during transport and related operations

Protection of animals at the time of killing

Minimum standards for the protection of caged laying hens Minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production Minimum standards for the protection of pigs

Minimum standards for the protection of calves

In line with the European strategy 2012–2015, the first European Reference Centre for Animal Welfare was created in 2018. It is dedicated to pig farming, with a particular focus on the practice of tail docking to prevent cannibalism in pigs. Its mission is to help improve the application of European regulations, by developing and disseminating knowledge and tools to optimize the official animal welfare controls carried out at all stages of production by the European Commission and the competent authorities in each of the 28 Member States. In October 2019, the European Reference Centre for the Welfare of Poultry and Other Small Farm Animals was created. On a national scale STRUCTURE AND OPERATION. In France, national regulations on animal welfare are the responsibility

18

Understanding Animal Welfare

of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and  incorporate all the European directives (Fig. 1.7). Within this ministry, the decision-making body of the Directorate-General for Food (DGAL) is supported by the Bureau for Animal Protection (BPA), which is responsible for transposing European directives into French law.

CNOPSAV

DDPP

National Orientation Council for Animal and Plant Health Policy

Official veterinary services

CONSULTATION BODY

FRENCH REPUBLIC Liberty Equality Fraternity

The DGAL’s approach to welfare issues is based on three bodies: consultation, expertise and control: –

CONTROL BODY

Ministry of Agriculture and Food General Directorate of Food (DGAL) Animal Protection Bureau (BPA)

the advisory body, the Conseil national d’orientation de la politique sanitaire animale et végétale (CNOPSAV), which has a ‘welfare’ section comprising representatives of scientists, professionals and associations14;

considered national agency for food, environment and work health safety

National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety

ORGANIZE THE EXPERTISE

Scientists Production of scientific data, expertise

DECISIONMAKING BODY

Global strategy for animal welfare France’s strategy for animal welfare (2015-2020)

National Reference Center for Animal Welfare

French national reference center on animal welfare (2017)

Fig. 1.7. French institutions involved in drawing up and implementing regulations.

Regulations in Europe, France and the Rest of the World

–

–

the expert body, Anses, within which a standing committee of scientifc experts (CES Saba 201915) and external experts are called upon to deal with health and welfare issues. This committee deals with requests from the DGAL or works on its own initiative, producing scientifc reports on the state of scientifc knowledge on the issue and presenting recommendations. In a similar way to that described above for EFSA, the report validated by the Anses General Management is forwarded to the Ministry, which implements its regulatory policy, taking into account the various issues at stake and the expert reports produced; implementation of the regulatory policy is monitored by the inspection bodies, the Directions départementales de la protection des populations (DDPP): veterinary inspectors visit livestock farms and other establishments to check that the regulations are being applied and are empowered to issue fnes if breaches are recorded.

They take action at various levels to ensure that animal welfare is taken into account: monitoring of regulations, consultation of the various players involved, expertise and production of scientific data, implementation of the national strategy. ACHIEVEMENTS. In France, regulatory texts on animal welfare are based on national codes and on European regulations as a Member State (Table 1.4). The transposition of European directives into national law, in the form of laws, decrees and application orders, takes more than a year. It can take up to ten years to comply with the standards, with tolerance periods in the case of new or rebuilt buildings to take account of the investments made. Fig. 1.8 illustrates the example of tethered or blocked housing for pregnant sows, with a move towards a ban on tethering, followed by a switch to a group housing system. NB: In France, in 2001, more than 70% of pregnant sows were blocked or tethered (Institut Technique du Porc). From 1 January 2003, these standards will apply to all newly built or rebuilt farms, or farms brought into service for the first time after this date. From 1 January 2013, these provisions will apply to all farms.

19

In the French law on the future of agriculture, food and forestry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food committed to a national strategy for 2016–2020, drawn up in partnership with professionals and associations. This strategy has been broken down into 20 priority actions to promote animal welfare. These actions include, for example, support for research projects into animal husbandry practices that respect animal welfare, which has made it possible to fund research into sexing embryos in the egg to avoid sacrificing male chicks of laying stock as soon as they are hatched. The global strategy for animal welfare also includes the creation of a French National Reference Centre for Animal Welfare (CNR BEA, Ministry of Agriculture 2014, Law 2014-1170 of 13 October 2014, Article 41 L214-5). An agreement ratifying the creation of this centre was signed on 28 February 2017 at the Salon de l’Agriculture by the Minister of Agriculture. The CNR is part of the contribution to the application of directives and to the initiative of actions in favour of animal welfare on a national scale. An advisory committee is associated with the CNR BEA’s steering committee, bringing together other stakeholders such as animal protection associations and professional organizations (inter-professions, chambers of agriculture). The ‘Animal Welfare’ partnership chair at VetAgro Sup supports the CNR in setting up training courses, producing and transferring scientific knowledge, and putting animal welfare players in touch with each other. The OIE, a worldwide reference The main body involved at global level is the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), where consideration of animal welfare began in 200016. Animal welfare was first defined by the OIE as a priority area for action in its third strategic plan covering the period 2001–2005. More modestly, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) launched an animal welfare portal in May 2009, with the aim of centralizing reliable, up-to-date information on legislation, results, standards and practices17. These two organizations have benefited from the EU’s expertise in implementing public policies in favour of systems that are more respectful of animal welfare.

20

Understanding Animal Welfare

Table 1.4. Key elements of national regulations and changes taking into account changes in the status of animals and their living conditions. (After Chardon and Brugère, 2016) Year

Text

Object

Legal base

1850

Grammont Law of 2 July 1850

Penal code

1898

Law of 21 June 1898

1959

Decree 59-1051 of 7 September 1959

1963

Law 63-1143 of 19 November 1963 Law 72-1030 of 15 November 1972

Ban on abusive and public mistreatment of domestic animals Cracking down on public mistreatment of domestic animals Article 65: Ban on abusive treatment of domestic animals Article 66: obligation to water and feed domestic animals at least every 12 hours during transport Article 1: Prohibition on mistreating a domestic or tame animal or one kept in captivity, whether or not in public Reversal of the burden of proof in the event of a judgement, 4-class offence Creation of the offence of cruelty to domestic animals or animals kept in captivity Article 2: Veterinary inspectors, technical agents and health officers are authorized to investigate and record offences relating to the protection of domestic animals. Article 9 (now included in article L214-1 of the French Rural Code): ‘All animals are sentient beings and must be kept in conditions compatible with the biological requirements of their species.’ Article 13: Creation of the offence of serious abuse and the offence of abandonment Article 1: Ban on depriving domestic or wild animals that have been tamed or kept in captivity of water and food, leaving them without care or keeping them in an unsuitable habitat. Article R-653-1: creation of offences relating to unintentional harm to the life or integrity of an animal Article R-655-1: prohibition on killing an animal unnecessarily Offences against animals are in a separate category from offences against property. The categories of ‘animal’ and ‘object’ are distinguished but have the same status: movable by nature (art. 25) and immovable by destination (art. 24). Article 521-1: Creation of the offence of sexual abuse Article 515-14: ‘Animals are sentient living beings. Subject to the laws that protect them, animals are subject to the rules governing property.’ Article 67: extension of the offence of animal mistreatment in livestock farming to slaughter and transport of live animals. Penalties doubled in the event of infringement Article 68: ban on all new or refurbished buildings for rearing caged laying hens Article 70: obligation to appoint an animal protection officer in each slaughterhouse, whistleblower status granted to all employees

1972

1976

Law 76-629 of 10 July 1976

1980

Decree 80-791 of 1 October 1980

1993

Decree 93-726 of 1 March 1993

1999

Law 99-5 of 6 January 1999

2004

Law 2004-204 of 9 March 2004 Law 2015-177 of 16 February 2015

2015

2018

Law 2018-938 of 30 October 2018

Rural Code

Penal code

Penal code Rural Code

Rural Code Penal code

Rural Code

Penal code

Civil Code

Penal code Civil Code

Rural and Maritime Fishing Code

Regulations in Europe, France and the Rest of the World

Prohibition of tethering of sows European Directive 91/630/EEC

Transposed into French law by the decree of January 20, 1994

Publication of the directive December 1991 January 1996

Tethering of sows authorized in France

21

January 2006

Tolerance for tethering sows in existing facilities

Mandatory standard, attachment prohibited for all farms

Mandatory standard : ban on new facilities in which sows are tethered Obligation to house pregnant sows in a group : minimum between 4 weeks after breeding and 7 days before giving birth European Directive 2001/88/EC

Transposed into French law by the decree of January 16, 2003

January 2003

Blocked sows

January 2013

Tolerance of blocked sows for existing installations

Mandatory standard for sows in groups for all farms

Mandatory standard : sows must be housed in groups in new facilities Fig. 1.8. Deadlines for application of European directives in France relating to the housing of pregnant sows. STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE OIE.

The OIE has 180 member countries. The International Committee is made up of permanent technical representatives appointed by the participating countries, one from each country. Work is carried out by specialized commissions, each dealing with different aspects of animal health. This organization plays the role of world leader in this feld, developing recommendations and guidelines covering animal welfare practices, reaffrming that animal health is a key component of animal welfare. The OIE sets up groups of animal welfare experts to prepare draft texts for inclusion in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code and the Aquatic Animal Health Code. These draft texts are then reviewed by the OIE Permanent Working Group on Animal Welfare, which makes recommendations to the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission or Aquatic Animal Health Standards Commission (Code Commission). Once examined by the Code Commission, the draft texts are sent to OIE members for comment. After a cycle of two consultations, new standards may be proposed for adoption for inclusion

in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, or the Aquatic Animal Health Code, in accordance with OIE standard-setting procedures. The Terrestrial Animal Health Code comprises two volumes, the first on general provisions and the second on recommendations applicable to diseases. The first volume is divided into seven titles, the seventh of which is entirely devoted to animal welfare, with recommendations ranging from the transport of animals to their slaughter, including the different production systems and the use of animals in research and teaching. The standards are updated in line with new scientific knowledge but have no regulatory value. They are less binding than European legislation, but are nonetheless essential, as they require Member States to take account of animal welfare in their practices in a harmonized way. ACHIEVEMENTS. The frst recommendations were adopted in 2003 and the guiding principles incorporated into the OIE Terrestrial Code in 2004. Since 2005, the OIE World Assembly of Delegates has adopted welfare standards for various species, with a view to incorporating

22

Understanding Animal Welfare

them into the OIE Terrestrial Code, and standards for the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code. These standards, which are drafted in the form of recommendations, are regularly updated to take account of new knowledge. For example, the OIE standards on the welfare of farmed fsh intended for human consumption during transport, stunning and killing, like the EFSA recommendations on fsh slaughter, served as a reference for an EU assessment of slaughter practices in European aquaculture (EU Report 2017). For two more detailed examples, Table 1.5 shows the OIE Terrestrial Code recommendations for painful practices in broilers and pigs18.

1.4 Scientific Basis for the Sentient and Conscious Nature of Animals In the previous chapter on regulations, it was explained that European regulations and,

consequently, French law are based on the recognition of the ‘sentience of animals’. Unfortunately, the term ‘sentience’ is not defined by the legislator, and its interpretation depends on each person’s relationship with animals. Ignorance of the sentience of animals can lead to anthropomorphic interpretations, i.e. a view of animal welfare through a human rather than an animal prism. It is therefore essential to have a scientific understanding of animal sentience if we are to understand animal welfare from their point of view. This chapter is in two parts. The first looks at animal sentience in terms of the sensory and psychological dimensions, which are complementary. It explains that animals can express cognitive capacities comparable to those of humans, which is, nowadays, confirmed by the development of scientific knowledge and increasingly taken into account by the various players involved in animal welfare. The second part explores the interdependence between emotional processes

Table 1.5. Targeted recommendations on painful practices in broilers and pigs (OIE Terrestrial Code 2019 edition; Title 7 ‘Animal welfare’). Chapter 7.10. Animal welfare Pecking and cannibalism are rare in broilers because of their young age. However, rearing practices such as reducing light intensity, providing in broiler production material for pecking, modifying the feed ration, reducing stocking systems. density and selecting suitable genetic lines should be applied when article 7.10.4 pecking and cannibalism are potential problems. If these strategies fail, Recommendations therapeutic beak removal is the last resort. Prevention of pecking and Measurable, results-based criteria: lesion frequency, behaviour, plumage cannibalism condition and mortality rate Chapter 7.13. Animal welfare Certain procedures, such as surgical castration, tail docking, cutting or in pig production systems. grinding of teeth, canine trimming, identification, nose ringing and hoof article 7.13.8. Painful trimming, are likely to be routinely performed on pigs. These operations procedures should only be carried out by trained personnel if they are necessary to facilitate husbandry, meet market or environmental requirements, improve personal safety, or promote animal welfare. These procedures are painful or may be painful. They must be carried out in such a way as to minimize any pain, distress or suffering to the animal. The options available to limit the animal welfare problems associated with these procedures include the internationally accepted ‘3Rs’: replacement (e.g. rearing whole or immunocastrated males rather than surgically castrated males); reduction (e.g. tail docking and teeth clipping only if necessary); and refinement (e.g. analgesia and/or anaesthesia as prescribed or under veterinary supervision). Oophorectomy should not be performed without anaesthesia and prolonged analgesia. A product that effectively and reversibly induces immunological inhibition of ovarian function is available. Medical prevention of oestrus should be encouraged to avoid the need for oophorectomy. Criteria (or measurable parameters) focused on the animal: complications resulting from routine procedures, morbidity rates, mortality and culling rates, abnormal behaviour, physical appearance and changes in weight and body condition

Scientific Basis for the Sentient and Conscious Nature of Animals

23

Summary

Council of Europe Conventions, recommendations

THE E’S International standards European Union

Directorate General for Health and Food Safety Regulation, application control

Ministry of Agriculture DGAL, BPA office Development of laws, control of applications of French and European regulations

EFSA Risk assessment, scientific advice

CONSIDERED Expert body Risk assessment, scientific opinion

Parliament and council Directives, adoption of standards

DDPP Control body Application of regulations

International organization

CNOPSAV Consultation body Guidelines for animal and plant health policy Specialized animal welfare section Multi-actor body: administration, research, sectors, NGOs

European organization

French organization

International, European and French institutions Animal welfare regulation is present at different geographical scales, with a strong European drive that has played a leading role in EU Member States and globally. The Council of Europe was the first to address the issue of animal welfare at a regional level, followed by the EU, which has been responsible for the majority of initiatives in the field over almost 40 years of animal welfare legislation. These pieces of legislation are then taken up at national level with the transposition of European texts into national law, and at global level with the adoption of standards and guidelines. At international level, the OIE has made animal welfare a priority for more than ten years and has adopted more than a dozen international standards for both terrestrial and aquatic animals. The collaboration between the Council of Europe, the EU and the OIE provides an excellent example of initiatives launched at national and international level. Relations between the various parties involved have led to the adoption of a joint declaration entitled ‘Animal welfare in Europe: achievements and prospects’ (Strasbourg, November 2006). They also encourage co-ordination and co-operation between the various players on many aspects of animal welfare, from drafting legislation to training veterinary professionals and para-professionals, and raising public awareness of the social value of animal welfare. Representatives of governments and the veterinary sector from 50 European countries had the opportunity to share their best practices and discuss possible ways of overcoming the social, legal and economic obstacles hindering the successful implementation of strategies to improve animal welfare in Europe.

and cognitive abilities in farm animals. The aim is to understand the transition from emotions, which are fleeting reactions, to a more lasting emotional state that defines welfare. The chapter

concludes by looking at the modulating effects of the age at which the emotional experience occurs and at the genetic basis of emotional sentience in animals.

24

Understanding Animal Welfare

1.4.1 The sentience of animals A sensory dimension to sentience Farm animals have five senses: sight, hearing (Fig. 1.9), smell, taste and touch. Their sensory abilities play a key role in structuring their social behaviour and communicating with other individuals. They can vary greatly from one animal species to another. Hearing spectra can vary from a few hertz to several tens of thousands. The human auditory field varies between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Below this range are infrasounds and above that ultrasounds, which are inaudible to humans. Despite major morphological differences, elephants and moles tend to have a hearing spectrum in the infrasound range. Conversely, cats and dogs share a large part of the auditory spectrum with humans, but perceive ultrasound (up to 40,000 Hz in the case of dogs). Certain species such as dolphins, rats and bats are able to perceive ultrasound at up to 160,000 Hz. What about farmed species? Chickens can perceive infrasound, unlike humans; as for sheep and cows, their auditory fields encompass those of humans and also include ultrasound of up to 40,000 Hz. As far as vision is concerned, it is fair to say that farm animals see very far. In fact, their visual capacity differs from that of humans, mainly

0

20 Hz INFRASOUND

because of the position of their eyes, which are further to the side of the head than in humans. In humans, binocular vision is very good, while monocular vision is restricted to 60°, so their total field of vision covers only 180°. The pig, which has very limited binocular vision, has highly developed monocular vision of over 260°, giving it a field of vision of 310°. In the hen, with a very small blind spot of 30°, the field of vision reaches 330°. This very wide field of vision is one of the characteristics of prey species for detecting potential dangers. Farmed animals have great olfactory capacities. Domestic mammals are macrosmatic animals, i.e. they have a highly developed olfactory system, unlike humans, which are considered microsmatic and have a relatively small olfactory bulb. Many domestic animals are therefore able to perceive olfactory information at a distance in time (left several days before, for example) and also in space. They are able to use their sense of smell to explore their environment, but also to recognize each other socially and even individually. Goats, for example, can recognize the smell of their young. This is known as an olfactory signature. Smell also helps to bring sexual partners or interspecific partners closer together. The sensory universe of the animal is therefore complex and depends on the animal species, with a first level of filter at the level of the sensory

20 000 Hz

40 000 Hz

HUMAN AUDIT FIELD

160 000 Hz

ULTRASOUND

Mole, elephant Cat, dog Rat, bat, dolphin Chicken sheep Cow Fig. 1.9. Very different auditory spectra depending on the species. The sensory capacities of animals vary from species to species and determine the stimuli perceived. This explains why species living in the same environment do not perceive it in the same way.

Scientific Basis for the Sentient and Conscious Nature of Animals

organs. This sensory filter, which distinguishes species, is the primary cause of different perceptions of environmental stimuli between species. We then need to consider another filter, that of the brain’s integrative processes. The brain is the organ of emotions; whether at the level of the cortex with the so-called ‘associative’ areas19 or at the level of subcortical areas such as the amygdala or the thalamus, it carries out complex cognitive functions corresponding, among other things, to multisensory integration, judgement, memory and action planning. It links the sensory information perceived with the individual’s experience, knowledge and current state. These integrative processes enable the individual to produce a response adapted to the sensory stimulation he perceives, based on his experience and the other information available to him. In this way, the individual adapts to the complexity and change of the environment with which he is continually confronted. To understand how an animal perceives and interprets its environment, it is essential to take into account both the sensory capacities specific to each species and the brain’s integrative functions (Fig. 1.10). The psychological dimension of sentience The psychological dimension of sentience reflects the ability of animals to feel emotions. An emotion is an intense, fleeting affective reaction in response

25

to a triggering event. It generally comprises three components: two expressive components (motor behaviour and physiology) and a subjective component (experience). The behavioural component is the reaction itself and aims to minimize the triggering event either by approaching the desired object (e.g. food, in the case of a hungry animal) or by avoiding it (e.g. a predator for prey). The physiological component corresponds to the body’s preparation for a motor response, represented in Fig. 1.11 by an increase in heart rate. The individual’s subjective experience relates to his or her emotional feelings in the strict sense; this is a component to which we have no direct access and which can only be inferred (deduced) from the animal’s behavioural and physiological reactions. To study emotions in animals, we need to take an inferential approach. In psychology, this involves accessing an individual’s subjective experience on the basis of their behavioural and physiological reactions. The absence of verbal language makes scientific analysis of animal emotions more difficult. In order to understand emotions in animals, it is necessary to proceed by analogy with what is known in humans. An analogy in behavioural responses, such as facial expressions of emotion, is frequently reported between humans and animals. Darwin was the first to associate the facial expressions of chimpanzees and humans:

SENSORY PERCEPTION EMOTIONS

Environment physical and social, events and stimulus Temperament, experience, expectations of the animal...

INTEGRATION

Fig. 1.10. The animal’s perception of the environment. Animals perceive and interpret their environment according to their sensory capacities and the integrative functions of the brain, which depend, in particular, on their experience and temperament.

26

Understanding Animal Welfare

BEHAVIOURAL REACTION

TRIGGER EVENT SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE

e

nalin

adre

cortisol

PHYSIOLOGICAL ACTIVATION Fig. 1.11. Expressive components of emotion in animals. An emotion is traditionally defined by three components: the behavioural reaction, the associated physiological activation, and the subjective experience corresponding to the emotional feeling. An animal’s subjective experience can only be inferred from its behavioural and physiological reactions.

for example, the curling up of the lips to release the teeth and the furrowing of the eyebrows when threatened. We can also draw a parallel between the facial expressions observed in humans in a pleasurable situation and those of a goat being stroked or a cow rubbing against a brush. There is also a similarity in physiological responses. In stress reactions, for example, the same response systems are involved in animals as in humans, namely the neurovegetative system, which produces catecholamines (adrenaline and noradrenaline) in an emergency situation, and a second system, which is slower to activate but functions more sustainably, the neuroendocrine system, which produces glucocorticoids (cortisol or corticosterone). These hormones are all synthesized by the adrenal gland, located near the kidney and made up of two different structures. The central structure of the adrenal gland, called the ‘medullary adrenal gland’, produces catecholamines, which are released rapidly in emotionally charged situations; the peripheral structure, called the ‘adrenal cortex’, produces glucocorticoids, which enable the body to adapt to a persistent alarming situation. Stress is most often considered to be the nonspecific component of emotional activation,

underpinning a basic psychobiological response, which, depending on the situation, results in a specific emotion. For example, in the event of a positive emotion (e.g. joy) or a negative emotion (e.g. fear), we observe a similar physiological response (increase in heart rate, secretion of cortisol etc.). Finally, the analogy between humans and other animals also concerns the architecture and functions of the brain. There is both an anatomical analogy – with the presence of the same cortical and subcortical structures – and a functional analogy, with, for example, the same neuronal circuits. This range of similarities between humans and animals allows us to make the solid assumption that animals, like humans, are capable of emotional experiences and therefore of feeling emotions. However, it must be stressed that in the absence of a verbal relationship, deducing the emotion felt by animals from their behavioural and physiological reactions (inference approach) is still relatively inadequate for a scientific understanding of animals’ emotional experiences. There are several limitations to this reasoning. We can illustrate this difficulty by taking, on the one hand, the expressions of animals

Scientific Basis for the Sentient and Conscious Nature of Animals

in situations of immobility, such as the tonic immobility of a quail or the blunted reactivity or apathetic posture of a dog in a kennel, and, on the other, much more active reactions, such as the flight of a zebra or the charge of an elephant, both facing a lion. These behavioural reactions, whether inhibited postures or strong motor reactions, are all responses attributed to the same negative emotion, fear. The difficulty in this case, apart from the fact that reactions can be very different between species for the same emotion, is knowing what gradient of fear to attribute to these animals (i.e. Is the fear felt by the zebra of the same intensity as that felt by the quail?), according to the different behavioural expressions. It is therefore difficult to be satisfied with the analogy with humans, and it seems necessary to have a multidimensional approach to characterize emotions in animals more objectively. To achieve this, it is essential to take an interest in the cognitive capacities of animals in order to gain access to their emotional experience. In this context, we might mention the pioneering work of Mason in 1971, who looked at frustration reactions in monkeys. He exposed two groups of starving animals to a conspecific who could satisfy his hunger with a banana. The first group was given no food at all. An increase in the salivary concentration of the adrenocortical hormone cortisol was measured, revealing a strong emotional state that could express frustration. The second group was given kibble with no nutritional value, but which enabled the animal to adopt a feeding behaviour. In this case, there was no increase in the concentration of salivary cortisol, synonymous with the absence of any particular emotion. We can conclude that an emotion is not a reflex response as previously thought, but that it depends on the way in which the individual represents the situation with which he is confronted. It is this cognitive process of mental representation that is at the origin of the emotion felt, in this case close to frustration in the case of the monkeys in the group without food substitutes in Mason’s experiment. It is therefore interesting to take a closer look at human psychology, which has identified the cognitive processes responsible for human emotions. An emotion depends on the way in which the individual judges the situation that triggers it. To define an emotion, psychologists therefore add a fourth component: the ‘evaluation’

27

component, which triggers the emotional experience itself. Scherer et al. (2001) have shown in humans that this evaluation is based on a limited number of elementary processes, such as assessing suddenness, familiarity, whether the situation corresponds to the individual’s expectations, and whether or not the individual can control the situation to which he or she is exposed (controllability). All these basic criteria contribute to an overall assessment of the situation and to the production of an emotion, the nature of which will be determined by the outcome of this assessment. What is the relevance of these simple assessment criteria in animals? As an example, let us look experimentally at the relevance of the process of matching expectations in sheep. In the first phase, the animal is taught to put its head through a window to trigger the distribution of a fixed quantity of familiar food. This situation is repeated so that the animal associates its gesture with the food distribution. In the second phase, some animals receive four times less concentrate than the others, who continue to receive the usual amount of concentrate each time they perform the learned behaviour. In these animals, ‘rewarded’ with a smaller quantity of feed, an increase in the number of bleats, locomotor activity and heart rate was observed. This suggests a negative emotion linked to the fact that the new reward did not correspond to their expectations, unlike the animals that continued to receive the usual amount of reward and did not express any negative emotions. This clearly shows that animals are capable of developing expectations in the case of a situation that is repeated, and that they engage in an action with a specific goal in mind. When the animal’s expected goal – in this case obtaining a given quantity of food – is not achieved, a negative contrast is produced between what is expected and what is received, resulting in a feeling of frustration. This experimental illustration reveals that elementary processes identical to those defined in humans for evaluating their environment are found in other animals and are at the origin of the emotions felt (Fig. 1.12). The previous example illustrated the process of matching expectations, but other work has shown that farm animals are also capable of evaluating their world according to the suddenness, familiarity and predictability of the situation, and according to their ability to control it. Taking

28

Understanding Animal Welfare

Increased heart rate Increased locomotor activity

Increased bleating

e!

eee

e eee

B

COMPLETE FOOD DOSE

DOSE 4 TIMES LESS

Fig. 1.12. Negative emotion due to failure to meet the animal’s expectations.

these cognitive abilities into account provides a better understanding of the modulation of emotional responses (Fig. 1.13). This gives us an indispensable means of access to understanding emotions in animals. On the basis of the combinations of criteria studied in humans, it is possible to conclude that animals are endowed with a variety of emotions such as fear, anger, distress, rage and boredom, as well as positive emotions such as joy and pride. In addition to the basic criteria mentioned above, other analytical studies suggest that animals also possess cognitive abilities that until recently were thought to be specific to humans. In particular, reflexivity about their own actions, which defines consciousness, is now the subject of scientific study and reflection in animals. Innovative approaches involving animals, inspired by work on humans, have slowly led to the emergence of the issue of consciousness in animals over the last 20 years or so. Recently, as part of a collective scientific assessment, the question of animal consciousness

was discussed on the basis of a consensus analysis of the literature (see next box).

1.4.2 The relationship between emotional reactions and animal welfare An emotion is a fleeting reaction, whereas the concept of welfare relates to a more or less persistent state. In 1.4.1, above, it was shown that an animal’s emotional capacities depend on the way it perceives and evaluates the surrounding world. We will now try to explain the transition from emotions to a state of welfare (or ill-being); for example, how an emotional experience transiently modulates the animal’s ability to evaluate, and how the accumulation of emotions prolongs this modulation to a greater or lesser extent. We will then see that this modulation persists the younger the emotional experience, and we will conclude with the influence of the genetic bases of emotional sentience.

Scientific Basis for the Sentient and Conscious Nature of Animals

29

Consciousness in animals Is it relevant to use words describing the mental processes underlying human behaviour to interpret animal behaviour? And at the same time, is it possible to use the same evaluation methods? Seventeen researchers from the biological sciences and the humanities and social sciences recently discussed the concept of consciousness in animals, based on an analysis of the scientific literature. The contents of consciousness have been demonstrated in humans by their verbal testimony, although it cannot be said that this testimony reflects the reality of what is experienced by the individual. The definition of consciousness that has been adopted for animals relates to their ability to reflect on their actions: ‘Consciousness is the subjective or phenomenal experience that an animal has of its environment, its own body and/or its own knowledge’. The content of consciousness can be inferred from a detailed analysis of an animal’s behaviour and brain activity. The study of its behaviour reveals the mental capacities that enable it to adapt to a changing and often unpredictable living environment. This leads to the recognition of the existence of conscious processes in animals.

30

Understanding Animal Welfare

EVALUATION CRITERIA TRIGGER EVENT

EVENT FEATURES

CONSEQUENCES OF THE EVENT

Suddenness Familiarity

Expectations of the animal Ability to control

Predictability Valence (+/–)

PERCEPTION

EMOTIONS

ASSESSMENT

Fig. 1.13. The elementary cognitive processes by which animals evaluate their environment. Farm animals evaluate their environment on the basis of a small number of elementary cognitive processes. These processes include simple criteria, such as suddenness, familiarity and the positive or negative valence of the environment, which enable animals to characterize their environment, but also more complex criteria, such as the ability to construct expectations of the environment and to control events.

Modulation of evaluation abilities after an emotion: judgement and learning biases The animal’s assessment of the situation triggers an emotion. This emotion in turn is capable of modifying and altering the animal’s cognitive abilities. This is known as cognitive bias and can be observed in the form of learning bias or judgement bias. An example of learning bias is reported in Hebb’s representation of the inverted-U relationship between an individual’s cognitive performance and their emotional level: learning performance increases as the emotional load increases up to a certain level; beyond this emotional level, which is considered ‘optimal’, the individual’s performance deteriorates. A judgement bias corresponds to an altered perception of the environment by an individual under the influence of a particular emotional

state. This principle comes into play mainly when the situation is ambiguous and is illustrated in humans by the example of the glass being half full or half empty. What about animals? This process of flexible judgement has been demonstrated over the last ten years in several species (mammals, birds, fish etc.). For example, the zebra cichlid, a freshwater fish from Central America with the particularity of living in a stable pair (with a preferred partner), evaluates an ambiguous environment more or less positively depending on its own emotional state. The demonstration is based on the ability of these animals to discriminate between two locations of the same device capable of delivering food, one with a device delivering a reward and the other with a device that does not. Take, for example, a device on the left containing food (a worm, much appreciated by these fish, considered as a reward) and a device on the right

Scientific Basis for the Sentient and Conscious Nature of Animals

containing no food. After a quick training session with females, they learn to approach the device when it is placed on the left (rewarded side) and not to approach it when it is placed on the right (non-rewarded side). The test females were then paired up again. For some of the females, the male was not the preferred male (usual partner chosen by the female), but a familiar male not chosen by the female. For the other group of females, the male is the female’s preferred partner, forming a stable pair with her. For females in the presence of a familiar, but not preferred, male, this change of partner creates social instability. After several days, each female was isolated from the male (preferred and non-preferred) and returned to the test situation. After ensuring that the animals had memorized the rewarded side from the non-rewarded side, the researchers placed the device between the two learnt locations (in the centre), exposing the animal to an ambiguous situation that did not completely correspond to what it had learnt. They recorded the time taken for the animal to approach the feeding device. Females that had been separated from their preferred sexual partner had more difficulty approaching the device than those that had remained with their partner, reflecting a negative representation of the situation for the former. The researchers interpreted this difference by the fact that females separated from their partner develop a state of stress that biases their judgement in the face of an ambiguous situation (Fig. 1.14). The judgement bias test is carried out on animals to study how a life event can modulate an animal’s representation of the surrounding situation. For example, it has been used by researchers (Neave et al., 2013) to assess the effects of a painful procedure on the emotional state of calves. In animal husbandry, calves are often dehorned (horn buds are burnt) to prevent horn growth and limit accidents. The animals were trained in an experimental area to touch a screen when the colour red appeared, in order to obtain a food reward, and to refrain from touching the screen when it was white (no reward); this is the principle of the ‘go/no go’ test. Once they had learnt to discriminate between the two coloured stimuli, the calves were exposed

31

to five situations before and after dehorning: once with the red screen (positive situation: ‘go’), once with the white screen (negative situation: ‘no go’), and three other times with screens of a colour more or less similar to the two colours learnt (very light pink, light pink and dark pink), thus constituting more or less ambiguous situations. Immediately after being dehorned, the calves came much closer when the screen was of an intermediate colour compared with their performances recorded before dehorning, as if they associated these intermediate colours with an absence of reward (Fig. 1.15). We can conclude that after a painful experience, the animals develop a negative representation of their environment. However, in this experiment, this ‘pessimistic vision’ was transient, since when the ‘go/no go’ test was carried out several hours after dehorning, this alteration no longer existed.

Persistence of cognitive bias after repeated emotional experience An emotion is therefore capable of temporarily altering an animal’s judgement, with a negative emotion exacerbating a negative assessment of the situation. How can this cognitive bias persist over time and help to establish a lasting emotional state? The aim is to understand the consequences of the accumulation of emotional experiences with which the animal is confronted and the way in which it evaluates a situation. In human psychology, this phenomenon is known as ‘background emotion’ and acts as a ‘perceptual filter’ throughout an individual’s life without any specific link to a particular event (Fig. 1.16). In a study carried out, this time on sheep (Destrez et al., 2013), researchers sought to understand the effects of moderate chronic stress, induced by an accumulation of unpleasant situations, on the emotional state of lambs. For example, they delayed feeding, created unpredictable situations, such as untimely noises that the animal could not anticipate, and situations that it could not control, such as wet bedding. Previously, the lambs had been trained to perform a ‘go/no go’ test, which consisted of associating

32

Understanding Animal Welfare

1. LEARNING

Couple with preferred male partner

2. SOCIAL STABILITY/ INSTABILITY

NO STRESS

Couple with nonpreferred male

STRESS

3. EVALUATION Ambiguous situation

NO HESITATION

Fig. 1.14. Judgement bias in zebra cichlids.

HESITATION

Scientific Basis for the Sentient and Conscious Nature of Animals

33

Approach to screen (%) 100 Before dehorning After dehorning

80

60

40

20

Positive situation (red screen)

Intermediate situation (pink screen)

Negative situation (white screen)

Fig. 1.15. Changes in evaluation abilities after dehorning stress in calves.

TRIGGER EVENTS

EMOTIONS

SUSTAINABLE ALTERATION OF EVALUATION

Fig. 1.16. The accumulation of emotional experiences persistently modifies the process of evaluating the triggering situation (cognitive bias).

34

Understanding Animal Welfare

the location of a bucket with a positive situation (the presence of food in the bucket) or a negative situation (a flag suddenly waving as the animal approached and the absence of food in the bucket). Once the discrimination between positive and negative situations had been acquired, half the animals were subjected for six weeks to the chronic moderate stress induction protocol and the other half were reared under conventional rearing conditions without the addition of untimely events (control lambs). All lambs were then re-exposed to the go/no go test. There was no difference in performance between the animals; they all approached the bucket on the rewarded side and avoided the bucket on the negative side. However, when the bucket was placed in an intermediate position, i.e. between the two learned positions (ambiguous situation), the animals that had been subjected to the stress protocol approached the bucket less than the control animals, suggesting that they represented this ambiguous situation negatively (Fig. 1.17). These results show that in a state of stress, even moderate, the animals develop persistent pessimism. These cognitive biases are all the more persistent when the emotional experience occurs at a very young age. Similarly, the stress experienced by the mother during gestation can cause later cognitive biases in her offspring. Pregnant ewes were subjected to the same moderate chronic stress induction protocol as previously reported. This protocol involved exposing pregnant females to a series of different stresses during the last third of gestation (delay in food distribution, unpredictable addition of repeated noise and lighting, exposure to unpleasant conditions such as wet litter etc.). After being trained to approach a bucket placed in a given position and not to approach it when it was placed in another position, the lambs from these ewes stressed during gestation were exposed again at the age of two months to the same experimental set-up, but this time the bucket was placed between the two learned positions. Lambs from ewes stressed during gestation took much longer to approach the bucket in the intermediate position than lambs from ewes not disturbed during gestation, reflecting a negative perception of the device in these animals. This shows that the foetus is sentient to maternal emotions,

which can alter the subsequent development of the offspring’s emotional capacities long after birth and permanently bias the way in which these animals assess their environment. The genetic variability of emotional sentience In addition to the direct and indirect effects of emotional experience, genetic factors also contribute to modulating the emotional sentience of animals. Numerous studies comparing the reactions of individuals of the same species, but of different breeds, show that there is considerable genetic variability in the expression of emotional responses or the threshold of emotional sentience. For example, in sheep, the Romanov breed does not react in the same way as the Lacaune breed when the individual is isolated in a new environment. Romanov lambs bleat and move around much more than Lacaune lambs, even though all the animals are reared in the same conditions. Through a phenomenon of heterosis20 in individuals resulting from cross-breeding between these two breeds, we observe genetic variability in the expression of responses to isolation, which cannot be explained by the animals’ different individual experiences. To go a little further into the genetic determinism of emotional sentience, divergent selection experiments based on the tonic immobility response were carried out in Japanese quail. In birds, tonic immobility in response to capture by a predator is associated with a fear response. An induction test has been developed experimentally that allows the animal to be held on its back for a few seconds before releasing the grip. The length of time it takes for the quail to stand up on its feet reflects a greater or lesser degree of emotional sentience. A long period of immobility lasting several seconds is associated with heightened emotional sentience, whereas a very short period of tonic immobility indicates less sentience. Series of matings were carried out between animals characterized by the same duration of tonic immobility in the induction test, i.e. by the same emotional sentience. As the generations progressed, it was possible to select divergent lines of animals capable of long or short immobility, and therefore with different sentience (Fig. 1.18). We observed that quails from the line characterized by a long duration of

Scientific Basis for the Sentient and Conscious Nature of Animals

35

1. LEARNING

Bucket full of food

Empty bucket

2. INDUCTION OR NOT OF STRESS

NO STRESS

STRESS 3. EVALUATION Ambiguous situation

NO HESITATION

HESITATION

Fig. 1.17. Persistence of an evaluation bias under stress in sheep.

tonic immobility had a longer duration of freezing (characteristic posture of the animal which immobilizes in a crouched position under the

effect of stress), indicating greater stress in an unfamiliar environment, and were more anxious in an experimental test of emergence in which

36

Understanding Animal Welfare

DIVERGENT GENETIC SELECTION

Short tonic immobility lineage (ITC)

Long tonic immobility lineage (ITL)

BEHAVIOURAL REACTIVITY TESTS Openfield test (Unknown environment) Freezing duration (s) 30 20 10 NOT EMOTIONAL

EMOTIONAL ITC

ITL

Emergence test Emergence latency(s) 300 200 100 NOT EMOTIONAL

ITC

ITL

EMOTIONAL

Fig. 1.18. Genetic variability in emotional reactivity. Effects of divergent selection of the duration of tonic immobility in Japanese quail on experimentally assessed fear responses. Long freezing time and long latency show greater emotional reactivity.

the animals moved from a dark situation to a light situation. These studies clearly show that emotional reactivity has a genetic basis. Thus, the way in which the animal evaluates its environment determines its emotions, and these in turn can bias the way in which it evaluates its environment. These cognitive biases can persist over time if the emotional experience is strong. There are even sentient periods, such as infancy, when emotional experience can

be the source of persistent cognitive biases. There are also genetic influences that modulate emotional sentience.

1.5

Definitions of Animal Welfare

This chapter is divided into three parts. In the first part, after considering what animal welfare

Definitions of Animal Welfare

37

Summary An animal’s sentience depends on its sensory and emotional capacities. An animal’s sensory capacities depend on the specific characteristics of its species and determine its sensory universe, which can be very different from one animal species to another. It is therefore essential to be familiar with the sensory world of the animals we are interested in to avoid the first anthropomorphic pitfall. The emotional sentience of an animal, like that of a human, can only be inferred through its behaviour and by taking into account its cognitive capacities, which determine the way it evaluates its environment. It is by using experimental devices adapted to animals that it is possible to access their emotional experience and thus avoid a second anthropomorphic pitfall. The emotional reactions of animals are now studied in the light of the cognitive processes that are known to be associated with emotions in humans, namely those that assess the intrinsic character of the situation (its sudden, familiar and pleasant aspects) and those that enable the individual to anticipate and/or act on the situation. The nature of the emotion felt by an animal depends on the result of its assessment of the environment. In the light of the knowledge acquired in humans and on the basis of the elementary cognitive processes involved in the quasi-automatic process of evaluation, it is possible to conclude that farm animals can feel a wide range of emotions, from negative emotions (fear, frustration, pain, anxiety) to positive emotions (joy, pleasure). While similarities in responses between humans and animals do not necessarily prove the existence of identical emotional experiences, they do provide a powerful argument for interpreting observed behaviour and exploring the mental states of animals. Emotional sentience is unique to each individual, since it depends on both genetic bases and past emotional experiences. All these elements of knowledge about the emotional sentience and cognitive capacities of animals form the basis of the new definitions of animal welfare developed in the next chapter.

might be, we present the evolution of definitions by discussing the notions of harmony, adaptation and the animal’s perception/representation of the environment. In the second part, we will present the current theoretical definition of animal welfare proposed by Anses in 2018, which focuses on the animal. We will also discuss the concept of animal welfare. Finally, in the third part, we will explain what the ‘five freedoms’ are and how they have been used to arrive at an operational definition of animal welfare that can be used to assess it. This definition was used as a reference in the Welfare Quality® process as a basis for assessment.

1.5.1 The concepts of harmony, adaptation, perception and representation of the environment Does animal welfare mean that an animal can live outdoors in a natural environment and have access to pasture? Do animals housed in buildings, with comfortable, regularly changed bedding and sufficient feed and water, live in welfare conditions? Is the absence of pain, and more generally the absence of health problems, enough to ensure their welfare, and is welfare equal to

good health? All these questions need to be addressed if we are to understand what animal welfare is all about. Broad definitions of welfare Several definitions of animal welfare can be found in the literature. The Larousse dictionary defines welfare as ‘a pleasant state of body and mind’. This definition applies mainly to human welfare and, for the purposes of this book on animal welfare, it is obviously not precise enough. Other commonly used definitions assume that welfare and health (in the restricted sense of absence of disease or infirmity) are synonymous. In fact, physical health21 was the main aspect put forward when people started talking about animal welfare in the 1970s. So an animal in good physical health would necessarily be in a state of welfare. Good physical health is certainly a necessary element of animal welfare, but in view of the concepts developed in the previous chapters, it is not sufficient to define it. So, even though we still often find a close association between welfare and physical health, we need to go further in our concepts and not limit welfare to physical health alone.

38

Understanding Animal Welfare

Welfare: harmony between the individual and environment Some definitions consider the individual in its environment and then approach the notion of harmony: welfare consists of physical and mental harmony between the animal and the environment in which it is placed (Fraser, 1995; Veissier et al., 1999). Each animal has physiological and behavioural needs, and when these needs are met, it is in harmony with its environment and its welfare is achieved. Conversely, when their needs are not met or they experience suffering, they are no longer in harmony with their environment and their welfare is impaired. According to this definition, to satisfy the physiological and behavioural needs of the animal so that it is in harmony with its environment and thus achieves a state of welfare, three principles must be respected: –

–

–

normal functioning of the organism: the animal, in this environment, must have normal physiological functioning and must not suffer from illness, injury or malnutrition; expression of normal behaviour of the species: the environment must allow the animal to express its entire behavioural repertoire. This very important principle takes on its full meaning, particularly in the regulations, when the social nature of farm animals is highlighted; and absence of suffering: the environment must not cause the animal physical or mental suffering (pain, fear, hunger, thirst etc.). On the contrary, the animal should have positive experiences, taking into account aspects such as comfort.

This definition is not sufficient, however, as animals’ needs are not always met immediately and at all times. However, their welfare is not necessarily degraded. Welfare: the ability to adapt to your environment Other definitions have introduced a new concept, as in Carpenter’s (1980) definition: The welfare of managed animals relates to the degree to which they can adapt without suffering to the environments designated by man. Broom (1986), for his part, defines welfare as ‘its state as regards its

attempts to cope with its environment’. This brings us to the notion of adaptation: animals have adaptive capacities, particularly behavioural, but also physiological, which enable them to adapt to their environment and to variations in it. If the animal’s abilities enable it to adapt even when the environment changes or its needs are not met, then its welfare can be satisfied. For example, an animal will be able to adapt easily to slight variations in temperature by modifying its behaviour or physiology without this affecting its welfare. Conversely, if the conditions provided to the animal or the variations in its environment exceed its capacity to adapt, then its welfare will be degraded. If the temperature variations in the previous example are too great and fall outside the animal’s thermal comfort zone, the animal’s ability to adapt will be insufficient and it will be in a state of discomfort. According to this notion of adaptation, there is a sort of continuum between a good welfare, when the animal is in harmony with its environment, and a bad welfare, when the animal capacity to adapt to its environment is exceeded. However, it is difficult to make operational the definition of welfare linked to the animal’s adaptation, as we have no means of estimating the effort required by the animal to adapt and remain in a state of welfare. Furthermore, this definition does not take into account the animals’ emotions or their ability to represent their environment (Fig. 1.19). Welfare: the importance of emotions Other authors, including Dawkins (1983), show that welfare is not just physical (absence of injury or disease), but is also defined by the absence of negative emotions such as fear, pain and frustration, and by the presence of positive emotions (here we find the link with the notion of a pleasant state of body and mind mentioned earlier). We then see the emergence of the notions of perception and representation: animals are capable of representing their environment, and welfare depends on an individual’s perception of its environment, but also of its own situation in that environment (Veissier et al., 1999). Placed in a situation or environment that remains within the acceptable limits of its behavioural or physiological adaptation capacities, the animal should be in a state of welfare.

Definitions of Animal Welfare

39

Environment provided to the animal Events and stimulus

Positive perception

Adjustment and adaptation

Needs met Harmony

GOOD WELFARE

Negative perception

Maladaptive adjustment and reactions

Unmet needs Stress

POOR WELFARE

Fig. 1.19. Animal welfare: a consequence of an animal’s representation of its environment and its ability to adapt.

40

Understanding Animal Welfare

However, it is also possible for the animal to perceive this situation or environment as being more negative than it really is, and therefore not to adjust its behaviour or physiology appropriately, but rather in an exaggerated manner. This will lead to stress, negative emotions and a deterioration in the animal’s welfare. Let us take the example of an animal that has had a bad experience with humans. If an unfamiliar human approaches, it will perceive the situation as excessively negative, will engage in significant withdrawal or flight behaviour that is inappropriate to the situation, and will secrete stress hormones, which will degrade its welfare, when it could simply have moved away. It is not the way in which the human approaches the animal that is important, but the way in which the animal perceives this approach.

Welfare: in reference to what would be human welfare Other approaches in the literature refer to the mental, physical and spiritual welfare of humans in an attempt to define animal welfare (mind, body and spirit). The authors (Duncan and Fraser, 1997) take up certain aspects of the definitions mentioned above, while postulating respect for so-called ‘natural’ conditions. In this context, three aspects should be taken into account when defining welfare (Fig. 1.20): – –

mental aspects (mind): this concerns emotions, feeling pleasure, avoiding suffering, etc.); physical aspects (body): these concern the functioning of the organism when the

–

animal is in good health. We look for the absence of disease, good growth, possibly good reproduction); and aspects linked to ‘nature’ (replacing the spiritual aspect of human welfare, spirit).

These latter aspects include, on the one hand, the conditions in which the animals must be kept and which should resemble the conditions in which they live in the wild; on the other hand, the possibility of expressing natural behaviour. On this last point, things are not as simple as we might think, and we need to be familiar with the natural behaviour of animals before jumping to conclusions. Let us take the lion as an example. A lion is placed in a zoo cage. What does it do all day? It sleeps and waits to be fed. The normal reaction of someone concerned about the lion’s welfare is to say that it is bored and needs freedom and more space. The lion will then be placed in a larger park. What will it do? Nothing more. In the savannah, what is the lion’s natural behaviour throughout the day? It sleeps and waits for food to be brought to it: the same behaviour as in its cage. In this case, it is the lionesses who bring it. This does not mean that lions and other animals should be kept in cages! No, but it does highlight the fact that inactivity is not necessarily a problem for animals and that the natural behaviour of animals must be analysed from the point of view of the animal and not from the point of view of humans, for whom, unlike the lion, being inactive all day is not natural but a sign of boredom. When studying the natural behaviour of animals, it is important to avoid anthropomorphism. This is the role of

1. MENTAL ASPECTS: emotional states

2. PHYSICAL ASPECTS: normal functioning of the body Fig. 1.20. The three components of animal welfare.

3. ASPECTS RELATED TO NATURE: natural conditions and natural behaviour

Definitions of Animal Welfare

scientists, in particular, who carry out experiments to assess conditions of welfare and provide solutions to situations of discomfort. Finally, we need to bear in mind that nature is not always kind. Excessive heat can pose problems for animals, such as Australian sheep in midsummer, which do not always have the opportunity to shelter from the sun’s rays, and whose capacity for thermal adaptation is exceeded. There are, therefore, many ways of looking at animal welfare and, consequently, several definitions in the literature, but today we are seeing greater account being taken of animals’ mental states in the definition of their welfare. 1.5.2 The current Anses definition In 2018, Anses proposed a new definition of animal welfare, based on previous definitions and scientific developments, but aware that it would evolve as scientific knowledge progressed. This definition, centred on the animal, considers that the animal is a sentient being and takes into account the field of animal consciousness: ‘A n animal’s welfare is the positive mental and physical state related to the fulfilment of its physiological and behavioural needs and expectations. This state varies according to the animal’s perception of the situation’ (Mormède et al., 2018). There are several points to be made in this definition. Recognition of the animal’s individuality Firstly, this definition refers to the welfare of an animal, i.e. the welfare of an individual in a given environment, and not animal welfare in general. This notion is crucial because, as each individual is different because of its cognitive capacities and experiences, and as each environment has a different impact on the individual, the animal’s welfare is individual and different from that of its congeners. Secondly, welfare is defined here in terms of the animal’s physical state, but also in terms of its mental state: it is not enough to consider that the animal must be in good health, have good production and not be under stress; we must also take into account aspects linked to suffering or pleasure. So, for the animal to be in a state of

41

welfare, its mental and physical state must be positive. It is no longer enough to be free from hunger or fear. Satisfying the animal’s needs in terms of survival and a certain quality of life (water, bedding, exploration, interaction with other animals etc.) is also necessary, and failure to satisfy these needs can lead to discomfort and frustration. In addition, the satisfaction of the animal’s expectations must also be taken into account. Whether or not the animal’s expectations match to the reality of the situation (does the situation perceived by the animal correspond to the situation as it envisaged it?) can lead to positive or negative emotions. This aspect is the most difficult to assess and has not yet been incorporated into the systems for assessing welfare in livestock farming, which will be described in detail in the next section. Finally, the Anses definition insists on the fact that the animal’s welfare depends on how it perceives the situation. This last point underlines the importance of representation in animals and the need for welfare to be assessed from the animal’s point of view and not that of humans. Welfare and appropriate treatment are not the same thing When we talk about welfare, the animal is at the centre of decisions: what counts is the animal’s perception of the situation, so humans have an obligation to achieve results and must ensure the animal’s welfare. On the other hand, when we talk about appropriate treatment, the human being and his actions are central: the human being decides for the animal, with an obligation of means. Humane treatment is in fact ‘the desire to satisfy the physiological and behavioural needs of each species and each of its living environments, with the aim of achieving a state in the animal that is imagined to be comparable to the state of welfare in humans’ (Milhaud, 2007); in other words, everything that needs to be done by humans to satisfy the animal’s physiological and behavioural needs in order to enable it to achieve welfare, but in reality without necessarily assessing the animal’s actual perception of its environment. In the context of appropriate treatment, animals are well fed, well cared for and placed in suitable premises, but the perception

42

Understanding Animal Welfare

they have of their environment is not necessarily the one thought of by humans (Table 1.6). Let us take the example of dairy cows in a cowshed: the farmer has installed cubicles so that the cows lie with their heads forward, believing this to be preferable for the cows’ comfort and hygiene. In this way, the farmer sought to ensure the cows’ welfare. However, cows can choose, for whatever reason, to lie in their cubicle with their heads facing the opposite direction, i.e. towards the alley, whereas the alley is normally intended to receive the dung (Fig. 1.21). Appropriate treatment, the way in which humans have implemented the means to achieve welfare, does not therefore correspond here to welfare as perceived by the animal. In other words, humane treatment is not enough when it

comes to animal welfare, and it is important to really assess how the animals perceive the situation or the conditions they are offered. However, humane treatment is necessary, because it is the minimum condition for animal welfare. In parallel with this new definition by Anses, the World Organisation for Animal Health has also changed its definition of animal welfare. In 2005, it defined animal welfare in its Terrestrial Code as follows: ‘Animal welfare refers to the way in which an animal behaves in the conditions surrounding it’. In 2015, it added: ‘Welfare refers to the state of the animal; the treatment an animal receives is covered by other terms such as care, rearing conditions and good treatment’. Following the Anses definition in 2018, the OIE definition has evolved

Table 1.6. Difference between welfare and appropriate treatment. Welfare

Appropriate treatment

The animal’s perception of its environment

Means used by humans to satisfy the animal’s physiological and behavioural needs Obligation of means Analysis of resources deployed

Obligation to achieve results Analysis of the impact of the environment on the animal Assessment using animal-based indicators

Assessment using environmental indicators

Fig. 1.21. A cow’s different perception of its environment.

Definitions of Animal Welfare

again: ‘Animal welfare refers to the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies’ (Fig. 1.22). The need for a complementary operational definition Previous definitions, including that of Anses, are rather theoretical and refer to the mental state of animals. However, it is difficult to assess an animal’s mental state directly, particularly for farm animals in the field. However, if an animal’s welfare is a subjective state, humans must be able to assess it objectively in order to improve it. However, this mental state can be inferred from the animal’s behavioural, physiological and possibly neurobiological responses. To assess animal welfare, therefore, we need indirect indicators that are scientifically validated but applicable in the field. Alongside these theoretical definitions of animal welfare, there are also operational definitions that make it easier to assess the welfare of farm animals on the basis of indicators. The best-known of these, the ‘five freedoms principle’, has already been mentioned in Chapter 1.1 and will be described in more detail here. The definition developed as part of the Welfare Quality® process, which is also used in livestock farming, will be explained at the end of Chapter 1.5.

43

1.5.3 Operational definitions In Chapter 1.2, the 1965 Brambell Report on intensive livestock farming was presented, along with its conceptual and methodological contributions. The emphasis placed on behaviour in this report was a major historic first step and was extended to take account of physical and mental aspects. The Brambell Report led to the proposal of the five freedoms as an operational definition of welfare. The five freedoms In 2009, these freedoms were definitively drafted, for the time being at least, by the Farm Animal Welfare Council (Table 1.7). They are: – – – – –

freedom from hunger and thirst (i.e. physiological freedom); freedom from discomfort (i.e. environmental freedom); freedom from pain, injury and disease (health freedom); freedom to express normal behaviour (behavioural freedom); and freedom from fear and distress (mental freedom).

These freedoms are stated in terms of results (the animal must not be hungry, for example)

Concept of adaptation of the animal to its environment Concept of harmony between the animal and its environment

Notions of perception and representation of the environment by the animal

Definition of ANSES

Fig. 1.22. Evolution of animal welfare definitions.

44

Understanding Animal Welfare

Table 1.7. The five freedoms and the means to achieve them. (FAWC, 2003, 2009) Freedoms

Resources

1. Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition

Ready access to healthy food and water to maintain full health and vigour By provinding a suitable environment, including shelter and a comfortable resting area Through preventative measures or rapid diagnosis, followed by appropriate treatment Thanks to sufficient space, suitable facilities and the company of the animal’s own kind By ensuring that animals are treated and kept in conditions which avoid mental suffering

2. No discomfort 3. Freedom from pain, injury and disease 4. Freedom to express normal behaviour 5. Freedom from fear and distress

and not in terms of means (the animal must be provided with sufficient food). However, the means available to humans to best satisfy these five freedoms are explained for each one. Thus, for the first freedom, the absence of hunger, thirst and malnutrition, animals must be allowed free access to healthy food and water. It should be noted that this is, in fact, the absence of prolonged hunger and thirst. Farm animals waiting for food may be hungry for a short time, but it is necessary to satisfy nutritional needs over the longer term. The second freedom, freedom from discomfort, must be satisfied both indoors and outdoors. In the barn, care must be taken to ensure that it is sufficiently spacious, with a comfortable resting area. Outside, the animals must have access to shelter to protect them from the sun or the rain, such as trees or hedges. The third freedom, freedom from pain, injury and disease, must be satisfied as far as possible by preventative measures or rapid diagnosis, followed by appropriate treatment. It must also be satisfied by practices that minimize injuries and the pain they may cause. In fact, many farming practices can be sources of pain if nothing is done to reduce it. In pig farming, for example, tail docking (i.e. cutting off the end of the tail) is frequently carried out to limit cannibalism. This operation is often carried out without the use of anaesthetic or analgesia. However, it has been clearly shown that cutting off the end of the tail causes pain, so tail docking carried out without anaesthetic or analgesia does not allow the third freedom to be satisfied. A great deal of progress has been made in this area, and pain management in livestock farming will be discussed in detail in the following sections.

The fourth freedom, the expression of normal behaviour, is achieved through sufficient space, appropriate facilities and – very important for farm animals, which are all social species – interaction with other congeners. It is for this reason, for example, that veal calves in Europe must no longer be kept in individual pens from the age of eight weeks. When this practice was allowed, it was common to observe calves seeking social contact with their congeners placed to the right or left of their pen at feeding time, since they could only interact at that time (Fig. 1.23). An important point about the fourth freedom is that it implies the notion of choice on the part of the animal: it must have the choice of expressing a particular behaviour, the choice of interacting or not with its conspecifics. In order to satisfy the fifth freedom, the absence of fear and distress, care must be taken to guarantee living conditions and the treatment of animals that minimize any mental suffering, in particular by encouraging the best possible human–animal relationship and by limiting new, sudden situations that the animals cannot control. Finally, we can note that there is no real notion of temporality associated with these five freedoms. Observations made at a given time are used to determine whether or not one or other of the freedoms is respected at a given moment. These observations do not really allow us to take into account chronic aspects (in particular chronic stress expressed over the longer term) that we should also be able to assess on farms. How to implement the five freedoms We now need to consider, from a practical point of view, how to use this operational definition of the five freedoms in livestock farming. This is the

Definitions of Animal Welfare

whole point of the animal welfare labelling that is developing and the assessment processes associated with it. This is particularly true of the Welfare Quality® protocol, which is the result of a European project set up in 2000 with the aim of producing an operational definition of welfare that could be assessed on farms. This protocol grouped the five freedoms under four principles: food, housing, health and behaviour (combining in a single principle the ‘freedom to express normal behaviour’ and ‘freedom from fear and distress’). These principles have been broken down into 12 criteria, each with indicators defined to assess compliance with the criterion (Table 1.8). For example, the criterion of freedom from hunger is assessed in cattle by the body condition score. By aggregating the results (a)

45

obtained for each indicator, it is possible to ensure compliance with the criteria and principles and therefore the welfare of the animals on the farm. The indicators chosen can be used at the level of the individual in its environment or at the level of the group. Part 2 will present the practical aspects of using Welfare Quality® up to the overall assessment of the farm. It is important to note that, in this protocol, all aspects of the Anses definition of animal welfare are taken into account, except the satisfaction of expectations, which is not part of the assessment. The Welfare Quality® project was developed for pigs, cattle, broilers and laying hens. It was then extended by the AWIN (Animal Welfare Indicators) project, also a European project, which concerns goats, sheep, horses, donkeys and turkeys. (b)

Fig. 1.23. Changes in the way calves are reared: (a) veal calves seeking social contact with their congeners; (b) calves are now required to be housed in groups after the age of eight weeks to allow social contact. Table 1.8. Correspondence between the five freedoms and the assessment of welfare according to the Welfare Quality® protocol. Five freedoms

Four principles

12 criteria

Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition No discomfort

Good feeding

1. Absence of prolonged hunger 2. Absence of prolonged thirst 3. Comfort around resting 4. Thermal comfort 5. Ease of movement 6. Absence of injuries 7. Absence of disease 8. Absence of pain induced by management procedures 9. Expression of social behaviours 10. Expression of other behaviours 11. Good human-animal relationship 12. Positive emotional state

Good housing

Freedom from pain, injury and disease

Good health

Freedom to express behaviour specific to the species Freedom from fear and anxiety

Appropriate behaviour

46

Understanding Animal Welfare

Interview with Pierre Mormède by Christine Duvaux-Ponter, 16 February 2018 Pierre Mormède, you are a research director at INRAE and you chaired the work of the Anses working group which has just published a new definition of animal welfare. What motivated this work? Anses is responsible for risk assessment in various fields, and, in particular, for animal health and welfare issues. It is therefore important for it to define the scope of its activity in this area.To this end, we worked with a small, highly multidisciplinary group that included a philosopher, a legal expert, an ethologist, and veterinary surgeons specializing in zoo, companion and farm animals. In addition, the text was extensively discussed by the permanent working group on animal welfare and the committee of experts specializing in animal health. Several definitions of animal welfare are already available in the literature. The definitions reflect the state of knowledge and the position of each author. Most definitions of animal welfare are based on the concepts of stress, adaptation, harmony and appropriate treatment, and take into account the sentience nature of animals. What new knowledge in this area justifies a change in the definition of animal welfare? In 2017, INRAE’s the French National Institute for Agricultural Research, published the results of a collective expertise on animal consciousness.This analysis of literature data shows that many animals are conscious beings, i.e. they have a subjective experience of their environment, their own body and/or their own knowledge. However, the content of this consciousness remains to be specified, depending on the species, stage of development and previous experience, for example. How does this recognition of animal consciousness influence the definition of welfare? The main consequence is that we need to put the animal-individual back at the heart of our approach to welfare. For example, we will talk about the welfare of animals as individuals rather than animal welfare as a theoretical concept.The most important points are to take into account the animal’s point of view – its subjective experience – as well as the mental dimension of how the animal feels about its environment. What do you mean by ‘mental dimension’? The mental dimension draws attention to the fact that good health, a satisfactory level of production or an absence of stress are not enough. We also need to be concerned about what the animal is feeling, unpleasant subjective perceptions such as pain and suffering, but also look for signs of positive emotions such as satisfaction or pleasure. How did you formulate this new definition of welfare? An animal’s welfare is the positive mental and physical state linked to the satisfaction of its physiological and behavioural needs, as well as its expectations.This state varies according to the animal’s perception of the situation. What are the practical consequences of taking the animal’s perception of the situation into account? The most immediate consequence concerns the assessment of animal welfare on farms. Obviously, the analysis will focus on farming conditions – food, water, environment, health – which is covered by the term ‘appropriate treatment’, which is the essential prerequisite for animal welfare. However, the aim will not be to limit ourselves to measurements of rearing conditions but to turn to the animal to assess its own point of view in terms of its behaviour, physiology and health. Measurements taken on the animal are at the heart of scientific and practical approaches to assessing welfare.This is the approach now used in many welfare assessment grids, the Welfare Quality® protocol being the best known. Another important consequence of this subjectivity is that the animal’s point of view needs to be taken into account in the development of rearing systems, so that the animal’s needs and expectations are satisfied as much as possible. And in conclusion? Clearly, we are only at the beginning of exploring the processes of consciousness in farm animals.The definition proposed by Anses and its consequences for animal husbandry conditions will evolve as knowledge advances.

General Conclusion

47

Summary Definitions of welfare have evolved from notions of harmony, adaptation and the animal’s perception/representation of its environment. Anses recently proposed a new definition centred on the animal and its ability to represent its environment. As with previous definitions, this will evolve as new knowledge becomes available. To assess welfare, we need to take into account both the animal’s point of view (obligation to achieve results, the animal must be at the centre of decisions) and the means used by humans to ensure animal welfare (the five freedoms and appropriate treatment). Assessment of animal welfare in farming must therefore be multi-criteria, combining means and results. In order to carry out this assessment, it is necessary to translate the Anses theoretical definition into operational terms so that, in the long term, all aspects of this definition can be assessed.

1.6

General Conclusion

What can we learn from this first issue? Firstly, the social importance of animal welfare. It is clear that this issue is taken into consideration by the general public, but also by the entire chain of production and marketing of animal products, and in particular by livestock farmers. We also need to recognize the role played by NGO’s, and now by politicians in both reflection and action. The progressive distance between the general public and farm animals, the development of livestock farming after the end of the Second World towards an intensive mode not respectful of the sentience nature of animals, as well as new scientific knowledge about sentience of animals can explain the disconnection between citizens and livestock, as well as the growing concern for animal welfare. Regulations are used to establish principles relating to the appropriate treatment and welfare of animals, grouped together under the term ‘animal protection’. The main source of this legislation is the European Union and the Council of Europe, and it has subsequently been incorporated into French law. Recognition of

the sentient nature of animals is now at the heart of all animal welfare legislation. The scientific definition of the sentient nature of animals and the recognition of their consciousness are important steps towards establishing an operational definition of welfare. The main idea is that the animal as an individual is at the centre of the notion of welfare. We need to know how it perceives its environment and how it experiences it as an individual. In the same way, the animal must be at the centre of the definition of welfare as set out most recently by the Anses, whose concept has been taken up by the OIE in its Terrestrial Code: ‘Animal welfare refers to the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies [...] While the notion of animal welfare refers to the state of the animal, the treatment an animal receives is covered by other terms such as care, husbandry and appropriate treatment.’ This theoretical definition now needs to be put into practice in the field. This is the aim of Part 2, ‘Assessing Animal Welfare’, which looks at the criteria to be taken into account when measuring and analysing animal welfare.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9

The first edition dates back to 2005. https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/71653 https://agriculture.gouv.fr/20-actions-prioritaires-en-faveur-du-bien-etre-animal http://www.cnr-bea.fr http://chaire-bea.vetagro-sup.fr/ http://www.bbfaw.com https://www.inserm.fr/professionnels-recherche/recherche-pre-clinique/experimentation-animale/regle-3-rreduire-raffiner-remplacer https://www.coe.int/fr/web/portal/47-members-states https://www.coe.int/fr/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/065/signatures

48

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21

Understanding Animal Welfare

ww.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/087/signatures https://www.coe.int/fr/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/102 https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries_fr https:/ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/aw_eu_strategy_19012012_en.pdf https://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/minagri/files/documents/pdf/130301_1erCNOPSAV_SA_cle0a85e8.pdf https://www.anses.fr/fr/content/sant%C3%A9-et-bien-%C3%AAtre-des-animaux-0 https://www.oie.int/fr/ http://www.fao.org 2019 edition: https://www.oie.int/fr/normes/code-terrestre/acces-en-ligne/ Associative areas are regions of the cerebral cortex involved in information processing. They receive afferents from the primary sensory areas and participate in the formation of representations of the surrounding world. Improved vigour of a species obtained by crossing or hybridization. It should be noted that, while for the general public the state of health is often restricted to the absence of disease or infirmity, one of the principles set out in the preamble to the constitution of the World Health Organization in 1946 is as follows: ‘Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social welfare and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’. This is why we specify ‘physical health’ here.

2 Assessing Animal Welfare

Introduction Following on from Part 1, ‘Understanding Animal Welfare’, we saw that many stakeholders – animal protection associations, farmers, manufacturers, legislators and consumers – are keen to improve the welfare of farm animals. The prerequisite for this objective is to be able to assess the level of welfare, positive or negative of an animal or group of animals. Regardless of the livestock concerned, such an assessment may be required in a number of situations. Most often, it is motivated by a farmer’s desire to know the level of welfare of the animals on his farm, as part of a self-diagnosis, in order to find solutions to improve their welfare if necessary. With the same aim of improvement, this assessment can be carried out by people with an outside view who can provide advice. This could be the farmer’s vet, or sometimes a technician from the cooperative or an independent organization. Other initiatives may also require, and therefore trigger, a welfare assessment, such as farm certification schemes, which are increasingly including welfare criteria in their specifications. This is also the case, more recently, with farm welfare labelling schemes, the first initiatives of which were launched in France in the broiler chicken sector, aimed at informing consumers and enabling them to make informed purchasing decisions. Finally, since the end of the 20th century, regulations have required

farms to comply with certain requirements relating to the conditions in which the animals are reared (available surface area, light etc.). These regulatory requirements may be subject to controls, mainly based on observation of the environment, but which are increasingly moving towards direct assessment of animal welfare. Whatever the objective of the initial assessment of farm welfare, it must be as reliable and objective as possible. How can you build an improvement programme on a poor initial diagnosis? How can you certify a farm if you cannot be sure that the assessment is reliable and well-founded? Would not labelling carried out on the wrong basis mislead the consumer? However, according to the definition of the Anses (2018), which we retain as the official definition, ‘the welfare of an animal is the positive mental and physical state linked to the satisfaction of its physiological and behavioural needs, as well as its expectations. This state varies according to the animal’s perception of the situation’ (see Part 1). An animal’s welfare is therefore individual and depends on its perception of the environment. Since it is not easy to assess an animal’s mental state and feelings, especially when you are out in the field with the animal or a group of animals, you need indicators that allow you to objectively measure the level of welfare. According to the ‘five freedoms’ principle defined by the Farm Animal Welfare Council

©2024 CAB International. Understanding, Assessing and Improving Farm Animal Welfare (ed. Luc Mounier) DOI: 10.1079/9781800628045.0002

49

50

Assessing Animal Welfare

(FAWC), animal welfare is conditioned by the absence of hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain, injury and disease, fear and anxiety, and the freedom to express behaviours specific to the species. The assessment must therefore take these different parameters into account but must also make it possible to determine an overall welfare score for the animal. We will see in this part that there is no single indicator, but that the results of several indicators must be combined and integrated with each other to obtain this overall level. Finally, in animal husbandry, knowledge of individual animal welfare is essential, but not sufficient. The assessment must also be carried out at herd level, so as to best reflect the situation of the herd as a whole, without obscuring divergent individual situations. The actions to be implemented, whether in terms of changes to the environment or changes to the farmers’ practices, cannot, of course, be carried out on an animal-by-animal basis, but must be applied to the herd as a whole. So how do we go from assessing individual welfare to a result that reflects the welfare of all the animals? And what rules should be followed? Assessing the welfare of livestock is therefore a key issue. It is based on standards designed – and ideally co-designed – by various stakeholders (scientists, manufacturers, associations etc.) to obtain the most reliable and shared results possible. These benchmarks then serve as guides for the assessments carried out in the field. They, and the indicators they contain, vary according to the expected objectives and depending on the species, the type of production (meat, eggs or milk, for example), the age of the animals (young or adult) or the type of farming (in buildings all year round, with access to the open air, in the open air). The aim of this part is therefore to shed light on the general principles governing the indicators that can be used, on the characteristics that they must have in order to give a reliable result, and also on the integration process that makes it possible to arrive at the level of herd welfare from results obtained in isolation on individual animals. The examples chosen come mainly from the Welfare Quality® protocol, already presented (Table 1.8) and the generally accepted reference protocol. However, the main principles can be applied regardless of the reference system used, and even by those wishing to

develop new assessment reference systems. These principles should be familiar to the people who will be setting up the standards in the field, and they may be of interest to consumers who want to better understand how the information they receive is constructed. Chapter 2.1 presents the two complementary categories of indicators: indicators based on the environment, which make it possible to assess the living conditions provided for the animal, and indicators based on the animals, which aim to reflect the state of animal welfare. We will look at the advantages and disadvantages of these two categories. Chapter 2.2 focuses on animal-based indicators, presenting the different types (behavioural, physiological, production and health indicators) that can be used. Chapter 2.3 sets out the main rules to be followed if an indicator is to be scientifically validated and result in a reliable and objective assessment. This chapter also explains how indicators are measured, at the level of the individual animal or at the level of a group of animals. Chapter 2.4 sets out ways of combining and aggregating the results of the various indicators to obtain an overall level of welfare, taking all the criteria into account, for an animal or a group of animals. Chapter 2.5 is devoted to a number of evaluation protocols, in particular Welfare Quality®, which serves as a benchmark. Chapter 2.6 presents the animal welfare improvement loop. Assessing welfare is the first step or stage but the ultimate aim is to improve it. This chapter briefly details the various stages involved. Chapter 2.7 opens up the prospects, but also highlights the limits, offered by the use of digital technologies to assess and improve animal welfare.

2.1 Animal Welfare Assessment Indicators Whether as part of an initiative to improve rearing conditions, certification with specifications or targeted communication with buyers, the assessment of animal welfare on a farm must be objective (reflect the reality of welfare) and

Animal Welfare Assessment Indicators

scientifically validated so that the improvement is based on a reliable diagnosis and consumers can be confident. To achieve this, it must meet certain conditions. The first is to have welfare indicators that correspond to what we really want to measure. An indicator provides information about the value of a variable. Applied to animal welfare, it can be used to assign a value to a welfare criterion assessed on the farm. Taking a few examples from the Welfare Quality® protocol, in cattle farming, the ‘absence of hunger’ criterion is assessed by the ‘body condition score’ indicator, which measures the animal’s state of fattening. In chicken farming, the ‘ease of movement’ criterion is assessed using the ‘density in the building’ indicator, which makes it possible to estimate, a priori, whether there is enough space available for a chicken to move around freely. Sometimes, several indicators are needed to assign a score to the same criterion. For example,

Observation of animal behaviour

51

in pig farming, the criterion ‘absence of lesions’ in sows is assessed on the basis of several indicators: lameness, wounds on the body and lesions on the vulva. The way in which the indicators are measured and possibly combined to arrive at the criterion score will be explained in Chapter 2.4.

2.1.1 The two main categories of indicators Two broad categories of indicators can be used to assess welfare (Fig. 2.1):

•

indicators based on the environment, which measure the living conditions provided for the animal and respect for its welfare, such as the density in the barn mentioned above. They are also called resource-based indicators, because they assess the resources available to the animal; and

Layout, number...

Sanitary state

Quality of bedding, litter...

Layout, ergonomics of the cubicles...

Production data

Animal-based indicators

Environmentbased indicators

Fig. 2.1. The two main categories of indicators applied to lying comfort in dairy cattle.

52

•

Assessing Animal Welfare

animal-based indicators, which directly assess the animal’s state of welfare.

These categories do not all assess the same thing in terms of animal welfare; they are complementary and each has its advantages and disadvantages. Environment-based indicators They check the adequacy between the living conditions provided, the practices carried out and the care given to the animals, and the a priori respect for their physiological and behavioural needs. For example, when applied to animal bedding, they will look at the quantity and quality of bedding provided, or assess the layout and number of resting places. They can also look at the farmer’s mulching practices: how often he adds straw, and how often he renews it. Lastly, they may relate to the care given to an animal with lesions that makes it difficult for it to lie down comfortably. These indicators are therefore used to assess whether the environment provided for the animal (in the broadest sense) is satisfactory, whether it allows, a priori, respect for welfare and meets the requirements of appropriate treatment. For a very long time, these indicators were preferred to animal-based indicators. They are still widely used today, whether in the standards used in specifications, in regulations, or in recommendations to farmers to improve welfare on their farms. For example, European Directive 2008/119/EC on the protection of calves stipulates that, for calves reared in groups, the free space for each animal must be at least 1.5 m2 if it weighs less than 150 kg. Similarly, the minimum standards for the protection of laying hens in alternative systems stipulate that animal density must not exceed nine hens per m2 (Directive 1999/74/EC). For organic pig production, full slatted floors are prohibited and 50% of the floor must be solid (EC regulation 889/2008). More recently, the French Ministry of Agriculture announced that certain farming practices, such as tail docking (cutting off the tails of piglets to prevent cannibalism) and castration of male piglets, could no longer be carried out without anaesthetic. It is therefore the environment provided for the animal and the farmer’s practices that are assessed. This favoured use can be explained by

the fact that it is relatively easy and quick for assessors to implement. It is easy to calculate the available space per animal by dividing the total surface area by the number of animals. What is more, this value changes little over time, so can be assessed at any time. Lastly, it has been favoured in the past because the importance of the animal’s individual perception of its state of welfare was less well known and had therefore been little integrated into the assessment process. In the case of European directives, for example, it was not until Directive 2007/43/EC laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production that animal-based indicators appeared. For example, when the cumulative daily mortality rate of chickens (sum of daily mortality rates) remains below a threshold set by the regulations (1% + [0.06% multiplied by the flock’s slaughter age expressed in days]), the maximum rearing density theoretically authorized (33 kg/m2 live weight) can be increased by derogation. Matching environmental conditions and husbandry practices to the animals’ needs and expectations is an essential prerequisite for achieving animal welfare. However, indicators based on the environment do not make it possible to assess the way in which the animal interacts with its environment or whether this environment, which is, a priori, satisfactory, corresponds to its welfare. We have seen that the welfare experienced by an animal is an individual mental and physical state and that it depends on how the animal perceives its environment. What is more, an animal’s perception of the space available to it may differ depending on whether it is surrounded by animals with whom it has social bonds or animals it doesn’t know. Nor is it the same depending on whether or not the space has places to flee and protect itself, particularly for dominated animals. Similarly, to assess whether the equipment provided for the animal (a drinking trough, a place to lie down etc.) respects its welfare the size of the equipment should not be defined a priori but should correspond to the animal’s actual size and the way it uses it. To sum up, the indicators based on the environment make it possible to check whether the conditions provided for the animals meet their needs and expectations so as not to degrade their welfare, but they do not make it possible to truly

Animal Welfare Assessment Indicators

assess their welfare. These indicators correspond to an obligation of means: ‘Have all the means to achieve welfare been implemented? They assess what is known as ‘animal welfare’ or ‘animal protection’. So, to really assess animal welfare, it is preferable to use animal-based indicators alongside environment-based indicators. Animal-based indicators They are derived from direct or indirect observation of the animals and enable us to look at what the animals are ‘telling us’ about their welfare. Direct observation concerns indicators that can be observed directly on the animal:

• • • •

its behaviour and, in particular, its interactions with other animals or its penmates; its state of health (e.g. presence of symptoms); body condition (thin or overweight); and the presence or absence of lesions etc.

Indirect observation includes all indications that come from the animal without it being directly in front of the observer:

• • • • • •

its production (of milk, meat, eggs etc.); its reproductive performance; certain health data, such as somatic cells in milk; the animal’s productive longevity (the length of time the animal produces); morbidity data (percentage of sick animals in a group) and mortality data for the farm; and the quality of its meat once it has been slaughtered (for which a decrease often demonstrates stress perceived by the animal during the phases preceding slaughter etc).

These indicators make it possible to assess the animal’s physical state, as well as its mental state, by observing the way it interacts with and perceives its physical and social environment. To assess the quality of an animal’s bedding, for example, we can measure the time the animal spends lying down and observe its movements when it lies down, or observe the presence of any lesions to assess whether the bedding is comfortable for the animal, rather than simply evaluating the amount of bedding provided or measuring the surface area available. Similarly, the observation of positive or negative interactions between animals provides

53

more information about the way in which the animal interacts with its penmates and therefore perceives its social environment, than does measuring the surface area of the building or the density. Indicators based on animals therefore correspond to the evaluation of a result and not a means: ‘Is the animal’s welfare not degraded by the conditions it is provided with?’ In addition, these indicators make it easier to avoid the risks of anthropomorphism, i.e. the tendency to attribute to animals feelings or characteristics that are specific to humans. Indeed, with indicators based on the environment, humans may favour conditions that they consider favourable for the animal when, in reality, these conditions do not necessarily correspond to the animal’s perception, expectations or needs. With animal-based indicators, it is really the animal’s welfare that is being assessed, not people’s perception of it. 2.1.2 The choice between the two main categories of indicators Animal-based indicators are therefore the best way of assessing animal welfare. However, they are not always measurable or available, and it is sometimes necessary to use indicators based on the environment. Whatever the case, it is important to remember that the two types of indicator are complementary when it comes to assessing the conditions provided for the animals and how they perceive them. For certain criteria, certain categories of animal (depending on the species of animal, its production or age) or in certain situations, there are, as yet, no animal-based indicators that can be easily used in the field or that are scientifically validated as actually assessing what they are intended to assess. There are several reasons why, experimentally, existing indicators are not deployed in the field. Firstly, they can be too expensive to use, especially if the aim is to assess all the animals or a large number of farms; expensive, because it requires specific equipment, for example, or lengthy observation on the part of the assessors, and therefore a considerable amount of work which must be included in the cost of the assessment.

54

Assessing Animal Welfare

Some indicators may also require very specific skills. They could not be used by assessors without appropriate training, which would be time-consuming and costly to organize. Finally, existing indicators may not be fully validated (see Chapter 2.3) for use in livestock production. This may be the case for indicators that are not sentient enough to detect small variations in welfare. Let us take the example of the ‘skin fold’ measurement, which is used to estimate dehydration in animals. This measurement involves wrinkling the animal’s skin at the neck, pulling it slightly and measuring the time taken for it to return to its initial position. When an animal is dehydrated, this time usually increases. But in cattle, this measurement is not very sentient meaning that it only detects cases of advanced dehydration. It is therefore considered too late to be relevant to an assessment of their welfare, as it would be necessary to be able to diagnose a deterioration in the ‘absence of thirst’ criterion earlier and take appropriate corrective action. A blood sample could be taken to accurately assess hydration status, but as well as being invasive, this procedure cannot realistically be carried out on all the animals in a farm for the purpose of assessing their welfare. In all these cases, it is necessary to resort to environmental indicators alone, which at least make it possible to ensure that the conditions provided for the animals respect their welfare a priori. For example, the criterion of ‘absence of thirst’ in cattle can be assessed by counting the number of drinking troughs available, their cleanliness, and the cleanliness and flow rate of the water. If these parameters comply with the recommendations, it is reasonable to assume that the cows are not suffering from thirst. Animal-based indicators are therefore to be preferred for assessing welfare whenever possible. Indicators based on the environment can be used as a second resort, when animal-based indicators are not available. They also make it possible to assess, a priori, the adequacy between the environment and the needs of the animals, and therefore to assess animal welfare. The use of these two types of indicator is therefore complementary. Furthermore, once a welfare assessment has been carried out, the improvement actions to be implemented will relate to the animal’s environment or the farmer’s practices. It will

then be necessary to identify the points in the environment that may be the cause of the animal’s ill-being (this point will be developed in Chapter 2.5 on the welfare improvement loop). For example, observation of the animal’s gait (an animal-based indicator) can be used to diagnose lameness, which is the cause of a deterioration in the good health criterion. But it is by observing the condition of the floor, the quality of the bedding and the treatments given to the animals (indicators based on the environment) that the factors causing the lameness can be identified and corrected. So, here again, the two types are complementary and should be used together on the farm (Fig. 2.2).

2.1.3 Indicators of welfare or deterioration in welfare In the examples presented above, and in the chapters to come, we can see that most of the indicators currently used relate to the degradation of the animal’s welfare. They allow us to verify an abnormal deviation from what we know about the animal or what is considered ‘normal’. For example, to assess the ‘lack of hunger’ criterion, we evaluate the animal’s body condition and pronounced thinness, or, on the contrary, an exaggerated state of stoutness can, at first, alert us to this criterion. But we do not determine whether the food corresponds to the animal’s expectations and whether it provides a positive mental state. In the same way, the animal’s behaviour is often assessed using indicators of deteriorating welfare such as the appearance of stereotypies (behaviour performed repeatedly, invariably and with no apparent purpose) or agonistic (aggressive) behaviour between animals. Although they are called animal welfare indicators, very few of them can actually be used to assess the welfare of animals, such as the presence of positive emotions, a satisfactory mental state or a match with expectations. These assessments can sometimes be carried out experimentally but are not easily applicable in the field. Nevertheless, such indicators should be developed, and research is currently underway to define them. Among the indicators already in use, the qualitative assessment of behaviour seeks to determine the animal’s emotional state by means

Animal Welfare Assessment Indicators

ANIMAL WELFARE ASSESSMENT

Preferred use of animal-based indicators

IDENTIFICATION OF RISK FACTORS

Using environmentbased indicators

55

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS TO IMPLEMENT

IMPROVING ANIMAL WELFARE

Fig. 2.2. Indicators based on the environment and on the animals complement each other when assessing and improving welfare.

of a multivariate analysis of its ‘body language’, using a set of descriptors (whether the body language expresses joy, happiness, anxiety etc.) (Wemelsfelder, 2007). This will be characterized by a valence (positive or negative) and a level of activity (high or low). For example, a negative emotional state with a high level of activity refers to fear; a positive emotional state with a high level of activity refers to joy (Fig. 2.3). It is important that other indicators of this type are put in place to assess animal welfare, and not just the first signs of its deterioration. We will see in Chapter 2.6 that new tools linked to the development of digital technology mean that new indicators can be envisaged in the near future.

2.1.4 Assessing at animal or herd level Since welfare is individual, this chapter has presented the indicators measured at the level of the individual animal to assess its own welfare. However, in livestock farming, it is not possible to base either the assessment or the action to be taken on a single animal, as it is the welfare of the herd that needs to be assessed (Fig. 2.4).

To do this, the individual indicators must be measured, either on all the animals in the herd if their number is limited or on a representative sample of the herd if the size of the herd makes it impossible to measure the indicator on all the individuals in the time allowed for the evaluation. To be as accurate as possible, this sample must include a sufficient number of animals, and also animals that represent the diversity of the group to be evaluated. On this last point, care must be taken to ensure that the animals making up the sample are chosen at random, without focusing specifically on those for which welfare seems to be the worst or the best. For example, in a pig farm containing several pens, animals from several randomly selected pens must be assessed in case the welfare in one of them is different from the other pens. On layer hen farms, where the number of animals is generally very high, the Welfare Quality® protocol requires the indicators ‘skin lesions’ and ‘inflammation of the legs’ to be assessed on a total of 100 animals, by randomly selecting ten animals from ten different parts of the building. In order to assess the human–animal relationship in a herd of 100 dairy cows, the ‘approach test to the feeding rack indicator needs to be measured on

56

Assessing Animal Welfare

Activation + Fearful

Excited

Anxious Negative emotional state

Happy

Valence –

Valence +

Sad

Positive emotional state

Relaxed Depressed

Calm

Activation – Fig. 2.3. The dimensional approach to subjective emotional experiences (after Mendl et al., 2010). The qualitative assessment of behaviour describes the ‘manner’ in which the animal performs a behaviour, i.e. its body language, which makes it possible to deduce its emotional state.

40 cows, taking care not to assess cows all present on the same side of the building, or all the cows next to each other, as it is possible that the animals position themselves in certain areas of the building according to their place in the hierarchy, for example. For certain indicators that are more complicated to measure or require more observation time, the number of animals may be very small, but in this case it is important to ensure that this number allows a representative assessment of the situation. This representativeness must therefore be validated beforehand by scientific research (see Chapter 2.3). Finally, for some welfare criteria, individual assessment makes little sense and, in this case, indicators at herd level should be sought. This is the case with the qualitative behaviour assessment test mentioned above, which is carried out at the level of the group of animals (Does the group seem ‘happy’ or ‘anxious’?) and not individually; or in the case of sow farms, where the criterion ‘expression of social behaviour’ is assessed by an indicator that ‘counts’ the number of aggressive and positive behaviours for all the animals in the group to be observed, and not for each individual animal. Other indicators give an overall score for the herd as a whole, but based on data for all the animals in the herd. For example, the ‘mortality’ indicator represents the percentage of dead animals in the herd over a certain period. The death of each animal is recorded individually, but the score is for the herd as a whole.

Depending on the indicators used, whether individual or at herd level, we will see in the following chapters that the results obtained at the end of the measurement are different, and that they must be combined to obtain a result at herd level (see Chapter 2.4). Summary There are two main categories of indicators for assessing animal welfare. Indicators based on the animals themselves are preferable, as they are derived from direct or indirect observation of the animals. Indicators based on the environment, on the other hand, make it possible to verify the conditions provided and identify areas that need to be modified to improve animal welfare, if necessary. The two categories complement each other and should be used together in animal husbandry. Some indicators are measured on an animal-by-animal basis (‘individual’ measurement), while others are measured at the level of the group of animals or the herd as a whole (‘herd’ measurement). Although we talk about welfare indicators, we are currently talking more about indicators of poor welfare or deterioration in welfare, and scientific research is aiming to develop others to truly measure animal welfare.

2.2 Animal-based Indicators When living conditions are a source of constraints perceived by the animal, it reacts and

Animal-based Indicators

Assessment of skin lesions

57

Qualitative assessment of behavior

Assessment 1

Assessment 2

Assessment n Global evaluation

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL INDICATORS

Global evaluation

HERD LEVEL INDICATORS

Fig. 2.4. Welfare indicators can be measured at individual or herd level.

tries to adapt. The animal’s adaptive responses may be behavioural (changes in behaviour) or physiological (secretion of certain hormones). These will be used by the assessor to identify that the animal is under stress. These responses may also have consequences for the animal’s production or reproduction, or even its state of health. These consequences will then also serve as indicators of the animal’s discomfort. Four main types of animal-based indicators can therefore be used to assess animal welfare on farms: behavioural, physiological, production and health, although not all are used routinely.

2.2.1

Early indicators

It is generally accepted in the scientific literature that behavioural indicators are the earliest, i.e. they are the first to vary in response to a constraint

perceived by the animal. They are therefore the indicators that an assessor can see at the earliest. Physiological indicators are also sensitive and early, and often coincide with behavioural indicators. However, some species that are prey in their natural state tend to express their behaviour less and therefore have less visible reactions in order to minimize their weakness in relation to the predator, even though the physiological indicators are largely modified. In this case, the behavioural indicators may not be easily perceptible, and only the physiological indicators will be useable at an early stage. For example, hens that had been classified as ‘docile’ on the basis of their low behavioural reactivity to various events were eventually classified as very fearful on the basis of recordings of their heart rate (Duncan, 1979). Health and production indicators are, in the majority of cases, less sensitive and less quickly or easily modified in the face of a constraint (Fig. 2.5).

58

Assessing Animal Welfare

Health

EARLY APPEARANCE OF INDICATORS

Production

Physiology

Behaviour

INCREASING INTENSITY OF CONSTRAINT

Fig. 2.5. Faced with a constraint perceived by an animal, the types of indicators appear at different times.

This difference in precocity implies different points:

•

•

•

Behavioural indicators should be used to detect any deterioration in animal welfare at an early stage, before it becomes too serious. They should also be favoured when corrective action is being taken, so that their effectiveness can be rapidly assessed. It is important to be aware that the absence of changes in production indicators does not necessarily refect the absence of a constraint suffered by the animal. In fact, this constraint may have repercussions on the animal’s behaviour or physiology without affecting its production. As a result, good production is not always synonymous with optimum animal welfare. The overall assessment of animal welfare must use indicators of different types. It is only when these indicators are consistent and unimpaired that genuine respect for welfare can be guaranteed.

Welfare is therefore a multidimensional concept that requires a multi-criteria assessment.

2.2.2 Behavioural indicators In many cases, behavioural indicators are not only the earliest but also the most sensitive, i.e. they enable us to detect as many situations of deteriorating welfare as possible.

Faced with a constraint, whatever it may be, the animal modifies and adapts its behaviour to avoid this constraint or at least to attenuate it. For example, if an animal perceives the fact that a human or a conspecific enters its flight distance (its individual space) as negative, it will modify its behaviour either by fleeing (most frequently) or by attacking to get the human or the conspecific out of this space. Similarly, when an animal experiences pain when supporting one of its limbs, it will change its gait to limit the pain and will limp, which will quickly become apparent to an observer. There are two main groups of behavioural indicators: changes in the animal’s activity and changes in its reactivity. Changes in animal activity They may concern normal behaviour (i.e. part of the animal’s behavioural repertoire), the frequency and/or amplitude of which is exacerbated or reduced, or the appearance of abnormal behaviour (i.e. not part of the behavioural repertoire) (Fig. 2.7a). Each animal carries out a certain number of regular activities (feeding, resting, social interaction, exploration, locomotion etc.), which form part of its behavioural repertoire. The distribution of these activities over the course of a day (24 hours) constitutes what is known as the animal’s ‘time budget’ and is usually similar between animals of the same breed and age (Table 2.1). However, the distribution of these activities, their

Animal-based Indicators

59

Table 2.1. The average time budget for a dairy cow. It varies according to the animal’s housing (barn, free range), production, age and welfare. Activity

Time per 24 h under natural conditions

Nutrition

4 h (3–5 h; 9–14 meals a day)

Rest (lying down)

13 h (12–14 h; 10 sleeping sequences per day; including 6–7 h of rumination)

Rumination

8 h (7–10 h; of which 2–3 h standing)

Drinking

30 minutes

Social interaction

2 h 30 min (2–3 h)

Other activities (milking, locomotion)

3h

frequency, average duration and total duration over the course of the day can be modified by a constraint experienced and perceived by the animal. Thus, if the animal does not perceive the comfort of the place where it lies down as satisfactory (layout, place, surface), it will probably reduce the total time spent lying down or reduce the average duration of the sequences it spends lying down compared with its normal time budget. Changes in an animal’s time budget are generally quite complex to quantify on farms, as they require a long period of observation, at least 24 consecutive hours. Increasingly used on farms, new digital tools such as ‘activimeters’, which record the animals’ activities continuously and individually, and devices that measure rumination, help to detect these changes (see Chapter 2.6). A constraint can also alter a given behavioural sequence. For example, poorly designed equipment, resulting in unsatisfactory lying comfort, can lead to changes in the animal’s rising or lying movement, reflecting difficulties. Similarly, an environment that does not provide good access to food or leads to competition for food can lead to changes in feeding behaviour (frequency, duration of ingestion). These changes in behavioural sequences are generally quick and easy to detect, as they are directly visible to an trained observer. What is more, as they are often directly linked to a constraint, observation can, in many cases, link the modification to the risk factor at the

origin of the constraint, making it easier to resolve the problem. Here again, connected surveillance devices such as cameras with image analysis using artificial intelligence offer great opportunities for early detection of these changes (see Chapter 2.6). The constraints perceived by the animal can also lead to the appearance of abnormal behaviour. When the animal does not have what it needs in its environment to perform the behaviour for which it is motivated, it can shift its motivation to another object. If no substitute object is available in the environment, the animal may perform the activity without an object, and this is known as a ‘vacuum activity’ (e.g. playing with tongues). These fixed, repeated activities with no apparent purpose are known as ‘stereotypies’. They are abnormal and often indicate a mismatch between the environment and the animals’ needs and expectations, even if it is difficult to determine the exact cause by observation alone. One example is tongue play, previously observed in veal calves (Fig. 2.6). Another example is the nibbling of substrates such as straw or soil which is part of the normal behavioural repertoire of growing pigs. When there is no straw or soil, for example in slatted floors, the piglet can redirect its motivation to nibble towards another material. If no object is present, piglets will often nibble on the tails of other pigs (caudophagy). For this reason, regulations require the presence of ‘manipulable materials’, which, by

60

Assessing Animal Welfare

Nibbling on grass is part of the calf's normal behaviour before weaning.

In the absence of grass, the calf nibbles what it can (substitution activity).

In the absence of items to nibble, the calf performs its behaviour in a vacuum (empty activity).

Fig. 2.6. Appearance of tongue play (empty activity) in veal calves in the absence of items to nibble.

encouraging the pigs to express their behaviour, are an effective way of enriching the living environment in slatted-floor rearing and trying to limit caudophagy. Changes in animal reactivity Faced with a perceived constraint, the animal may also change its behavioural reactivity to the environment (Fig. 2.7a). This change can lead to hyperreactivity (animals that overreact) or hyporeactivity (animals that are prostrate and no longer react). This change in reactivity can be observed, for example, in the assessment of the human– animal relationship, with exacerbated flight behaviour by the animal during an approach test, or when the animal no longer shows any interest in its environment and becomes apathetic.

2.2.3 Physiological indicators Faced with a constraint, animals frequently react with a physiological stress reaction, i.e. ‘a non-specific response by the organism to any demand made upon it’ (Selye, 1974). Stress is, in fact, a complex adaptive reaction by an individual which aims, in the same way as behavioural modification, to reduce the consequences of a stimulus. This response occurs when an animal is faced with a stimulus and has to make a quick decision, such as whether to flee or fight. Its physiological functions are then modified so that it can react urgently. Novelty is a powerful stimulus that triggers stress responses. These changes are also present when faced with a persistent stimulus that the animal is unable to escape.

Animal-based Indicators

This adaptive response, controlled by the central nervous system and variable between individuals, results in neuroendocrine activation which can be detected (Fig. 2.7b). The two main activations revealing a stress situation involve the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system and the corticotropic axis.

61

Activation of this axis leads to the release of corticoids, while activation of the autonomic nervous system triggers the extremely rapid secretion of catecholamines (noradrenaline and adrenaline), increasing the heart rate, which can also indicate stress. Using physiological indicators as markers of welfare or more precisely of the absence of

CONSTRAINT

CHANGE IN ANIMAL ACTIVITY

ACTIVATION

CHANGE IN ANIMAL’S REACTIVITY

Change in normal behaviour (frequency, duration) Appearance of abnormal behaviour

Hyperreactivity Hyporeactivity

Fig. 2.7a. Behavioural changes following stress to the animal.

CONSTRAINT

AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM

ACTIVATION

HPA AXIS CORTICOTROPE

CATECHOLAMINES (ADRENALINE...)

CORTICOIDS (CORTISOL...)

Cardiac frequency

Metabolism

Respiratory rate

Immunity

Fig. 2.7b. Neuroendocrine activation following stress to the animal.

62

Assessing Animal Welfare

CONSTRAINT

ACTIVATION

DECREASE IN IMMUNITY

INCREASED SENSITIVITY TO PATHOGENS

Appearance of lesions and injuries

Diseases

Fig. 2.7c. Physiological changes following stress to the animal.

excessive stress, is not easy on livestock farms. First, because it is not practical to collect the fluids from which these hormones are released (blood, urine, saliva and sometimes milk); secondly, the sampling required for these physiological measurements often requires the animal to be restrained, which can be perceived as unpleasant by the animal and can interfere with the physiological stress response that is to be assessed, not to mention the potentially invasive and therefore painful nature of some samples (e.g. blood sampling); and thirdly, the non-specific nature of the physiological stress response means that it is generally impossible to make the link with the cause of the animal’s discomfort. However, tools that measure parameters such as heart rate from a distance, or metabolites in the milk of dairy cows, are being developed and could prove useful in certain situations in years to come. 2.2.4 Production indicators The stress reaction that the animal expresses when faced with a constraint generally consumes energy. Furthermore, in the event of stress, the animal will often modify its behaviour, for example by reducing its feeding time or remaining prostrate away from other animals. The combination of these two factors – reduced

activity and energy consumption by the body – can explain why stress can lead to a reduction in an animal’s production (Fig. 2.8). In dairy animals, this reduction can affect milk production, but also the growth of young animals and reproduction. For cattle, a change of environment or caretaker, for example, is a source of stress that can lead to a drop in milk production. Similarly, laying hens suffering from water stress lay fewer eggs. Production indicators come from the condition of the animal and are therefore animal-based indicators. However, they are often measured not by direct observation of the animal but indirectly on documents or equipment (e.g. milk meters, milking robots). The main production indicators include milk or egg production, animal growth, reproduction parameters and meat quality, which can deteriorate if transport to the abattoir or the events suffered by the animals at the abattoir have caused significant stress. However, these indicators must be interpreted with care and relevance when assessing welfare. Comparing the production of two animals of different breeds or genetics or living in different rearing systems, does not allow us to compare their state of welfare we need to compare animals with identical production and reared in similar conditions. For example, the

Animal-based Indicators

63

CONSTRAINT

STRESS REACTION

ACTIVATION

BEHAVIOUR MODIFICATION

DECLINE IN FOOD

INCREASED ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Production

Production

Fig. 2.8. Changes in production (milk, eggs etc.) following stress to the animal.

milk production of a cow bred primarily for meat production cannot be compared with the production of a cow specializing in milk production to deduce that the former is in a poor state of welfare! Often, it is a drop in production that alerts us to a decline in the animal’s state of welfare. However, good production is not synonymous with optimum welfare. We have seen that behavioural and physiological indicators are more sensitive than production indicators. It is therefore possible for the animal’s welfare to be degraded, with repercussions on its behaviour or physiology, but not enough to have visible repercussions on its production. On the other hand, good production does not necessarily imply that the animal is performing at the peak of its potential, as allowed by its genetic make-up and the rearing system. The latter could probably be improved by better conditions for the animal. Furthermore, excessive production can also be a source of poor welfare (excessive muscle growth rate, animals with a ‘culard’ genotype etc. [see Part 3]). Improving welfare therefore generally leads to improved production (Coignard et  al., 2014; Grimard et al., 2019). The animal spends less energy fighting its state of poor welfare and can mobilize it more easily to produce more efficiently.

Improving the animal’s living conditions and welfare could make it possible to optimize the expression of the genetic potential and obtain better production. Production and welfare are therefore not antagonistic but complementary. Improving welfare on farms is therefore beneficial to both animals and farmers.

2.2.5 Health indicators They concern the animal’s state of health, i.e. the appearance of disease, but also the presence of lesions and lameness. The animal’s state of health is one of the criteria to be assessed in order to guarantee its welfare, as defined in the principle of the ‘five freedoms’ (see Part 1). So, if the animal’s health is degraded, de facto its welfare is too. But the state of health is also an indicator of the animal’s overall welfare: a deterioration in welfare can cause a deterioration in the animal’s health, even if it is not the health criterion that is directly impacted. Indeed, in the face of stress, the animal’s immune defences are reduced (Fig. 2.7c). This makes the animal more sensitive to pathogens present in its environment, as well as opportunistic pathogens, which do not normally trigger disease in an animal

64

Assessing Animal Welfare

with sufficient immunity. The clinical signs that appear are then indicators of the disease and indirectly of the animal’s welfare. Coccidiosis, a parasitic disease whose peak expression occurs when lambs are weaned or undergo a change of environment, illustrates this process. In addition to the appearance of symptoms suggestive of the disease in question, an increase in morbidity (percentage of sick animals in a group) or mortality indicates the presence of a constraint. In situations of poor welfare, physiological reactions have a negative impact on the animal’s immunity and metabolism. Skin lesions, swellings and irritations also reveal a mismatch between the animal and its environment (physical or social) (Fig. 2.9). For example, in cattle, lesions on the hocks may indicate uncomfortable bedding for lying down, and lesions on the withers may indicate that feeding rack is unsuitable for the size of the animal. In pigs, scratch lesions may indicate overcrowding or a mixing of animals that are unfamiliar with each other, leading to a fight. Health indicators are therefore particularly important to monitor. As soon as the animal’s health deteriorates, its welfare deteriorates further. Poor health can lead to behavioural changes that exacerbate the deterioration in welfare. For example, a sick animal will restrict its activity, move around less or eat less, which will have negative consequences for its welfare. Similarly, lesions can lead to pain, which in turn can cause a change in behaviour. Take the example of an uncomfortable bed that causes lesions in an animal. The animal will adopt a pos-

Fig. 2.9. Example of a lesion with swelling on the right hock of a dairy cow.

ition that relieves the pain, which may cause other lesions, or it will be reluctant to lie down, which will lead to other problems. Finally, a deteriorating health status can lead to difficulties in adapting the animal to its physical or social environment. A sick or injured animal may, for example, express difficulties in its social relations and be more often than usual confronted with competitions with negative results for it. The health indicators must therefore not only be checked/inspected early, but a solution must be found as quickly as possible to prevent the animal from entering a vicious circle of deteriorating welfare. These indicators also have an impact on the farmer’s welfare as a deterioration in animal health means extra work and stress for the farmer, as well as additional costs. The concept of ‘one welfare’ A deterioration in welfare has repercussions on the behaviour of the animals, their production and their health status all important points for the animals but also for the farmer, as they will reduce his working comfort. Indeed, animals that are more difficult to handle will increase both treatment costs and working time, and a drop in production will have a negative impact on the economic profitability of the farm. Animal welfare and farmer welfare are therefore closely linked, and an improvement in one generally leads to an improvement in the other. This is the concept of ‘one welfare’, which will be developed in Part 3.

2.2.6

Results of indicator measurement

A wide variety of indicators can therefore be used, and their measurement in the field will also vary, as will the results of the measurement. For some indicators, the result will be a number; for example, the number of behaviours observed to assess a given criterion. For others, the result will be the presence or absence; for example, the absence of a disease or clinical sign in the animal. Finally, some indicators may give a result on a scale or score, such as leg lesions in broiler chickens, which are scored on a three-point scale (no lesions, minor lesions or severe lesions). The way in which these indicators are measured, the result obtained and the method for combining the various results to produce an overall welfare score need to be validated (see Chapter 2.3).

Validation of Indicators

Summary There are four main types of animal-based indicators for assessing animal welfare: behavioural, physiological, production, and health. Behavioural indicators are the earliest to change, enabling rapid diagnosis of any deterioration. Physiological indicators are also very early, but difficult to use on livestock because they often require intervention on the animal. Production indicators link welfare and production: the better the welfare, the better the production. Finally, health indicators play a special role and should serve as a warning system, because when an animal’s health deteriorates, so does its welfare. When welfare deteriorates, whatever the criterion considered, the different types of indicator can be affected. They must therefore be used together, and there is no single indicator of welfare.

2.3 Validation of Indicators Animal welfare assessment must be objective, reliable and tailored to each farm. This is obviously important in a progress approach to improve defective points. But it is even more important in a certification process, where some farmers could be penalized by an assessment that does not reflect reality. Finally, at a time when more and more labels are appearing to guarantee consumers the welfare of animals on a farm, the need to give a precise indication, which also makes it possible to discriminate between farms with different levels of welfare, takes on even greater importance. Before using an indicator, it is important to ensure that it is valid. This validation is most often carried out by means of a scientific publication following research analysing the properties of the indicator. Currently, the Welfare Quality® protocol is the most widely published of the animal welfare assessment protocols. Many of the indicators developed and validated during the research project behind Welfare Quality® serve as references and are often used in other assessment protocols (e.g. AWIN, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c). Validation concerns all types of indicators, whether they are based on the environment or on animals. It must be carried out not only on the indicator itself, but also on the way in which it is measured on farms.

65

2.3.1 Validation criteria To be scientifically validated, an indicator must meet a number of properties, such as specificity; sensitivity (sometimes referred to as suitability for the purpose); repeatability and reproducibility; and stability over time. In addition, it must be suitable for routine use if it is to be truly applicable to livestock farming. Specificity The specificity of a welfare indicator refers to the fact that the indicator makes it possible to measure only what we want to evaluate and nothing else (thus avoiding false positives). This property must therefore be analysed in relation to the welfare criterion on which the indicator is supposed to provide information. For example, an indicator used for the ‘absence of hunger’ criterion must provide information on the animal’s hunger, and an indicator used for the absence of stress criterion must measure the animal’s stress and nothing else. To validate specificity, scientists can take two situations, one in which we are certain of a good level of welfare and the other in which welfare is poor: they assess whether the indicator can distinguish between the two situations. For example, it has been shown that veal calves receiving regular positive contact allow themselves to be approached at shorter distances than those receiving negative contact (Lensink et al., 2000). For the ‘human–animal relations’ criterion, an indicator would therefore have to give different results between these two categories of calves in order to be validated. Another way is to compare the assessment of a situation by the indicator you wish to validate with the assessment made by another indicator that has already been validated. For example, for the observation of agonistic behaviour between animals, it is possible to compare the results of observation over a short period, 30 minutes for example, with those of continuous observation over a long period, which has been validated, and see whether the two assessments, by relating them to the number of agonistic interactions per minute, give similar results. Another very important point concerning specificity is that the indicator must reflect the level of welfare without being biased by other

66

Assessing Animal Welfare

parameters. The result of the ‘body condition score’ indicator used to assess the ‘absence of hunger’ criterion must therefore not be affected by a normal variation in body condition linked to the animal’s physiological stage. In dairy cattle, we know that body condition decreases from calving to the peak of lactation, as the animal draws on its reserves to produce a large quantity of milk. If this loss of condition remains within acceptable (and defined) limits, it is considered to be physiological and does not show that the animal is suffering from hunger. It is then necessary to choose measurement thresholds which take account of these physiological variations and enable a real situation of suffering from hunger to be detected. Still in dairy cattle, the avoidance distance test indicator used to assess the ‘human– animal relationship’ criterion is generally a specific test. However, in the case of severe lameness, because of the pain, the animal may hesitate to back away from the human approach. A good human–animal relationship could be concluded by establishing that the animal is not very sentient to the approach of man, even though it is severely lame. In this case, severe lameness may affect the specificity of the indicator, and cows with very severe lameness should not be evaluated. Sentience, or suitability for the objective The aim of a welfare indicator is, on the one hand, to detect variations in animal welfare at an early stage, even if they are slight (and therefore to avoid false negatives: an indicator that gives a negative result when welfare has actually decreased), in order to provide rapid solutions if necessary and, on the other hand, to discriminate between situations with a different level of welfare. An indicator that only detected a change in welfare at a very late stage or as a last resort would not be relevant. Furthermore, an indicator must be used to compare two situations so that the assessor can judge whether the welfare level is different: this may involve comparing welfare on two farms, for example, or welfare before and after the implementation of a corrective action. Sensitivity refers to an indicator’s ability to detect small variations in welfare. For example, the ‘hollow eye’ indicator used to detect dehydration in calves is not sufficiently sensitive to assess the ‘absence of thirst’ criterion. In fact, this clinical sign appears when the

animal is already severely dehydrated and therefore does not provide early-enough warning of insufficient watering. Similarly, an indicator measuring the appearance of rare behaviours, such as certain play behaviours in adults, cannot be used routinely because it would be modified too infrequently to discriminate between welfare levels. However, it can be interesting to observe when one of these behaviours occurs, by revealing a particular situation. Specificity and sensitivity often move in opposite directions: the greater the specificity, the lower the sensitivity, and vice versa. So, you have to make compromises, or know what you want to focus on when choosing an indicator: preferring early detection at the risk of lacking specificity or ensuring specificity at the risk of missing out on situations that are only slightly or moderately degraded. Repeatability Whatever the situation, to compare welfare levels before or after corrective action, or to evaluate different farms, an indicator is necessarily used several times by the same person (Fig. 2.10a). To be scientifically validated, the indicator must give the same result when assessing the same situation; otherwise it is impossible to rely on the assessment. For example, the ‘presence of lesions’ indicator must give the same score if new lesions have not appeared and old lesions have not disappeared on the animal observed between two observations. The repeatability of an indicator can be validated by using photos or videos showing exactly the same situation. The observer must then find the same score for each photo or video. This method can be used, in particular, for indicators of body condition, lameness, lying behaviour etc. An indicator, even one validated as repeatable, requires an experienced observer with prior training, and it is often necessary to continue training even after a certain period of experience to ensure that the assessment remains correct. Reproducibility The reproducibility of an indicator is the same property as repeatability, but this time two different observers must find the same result after measuring an indicator in the same situation (Fig. 2.10b).

Validation of Indicators

(a)

67

(b)

REPEATABILITY

REPRODUCIBILITY

Fig. 2.10. The difference between the repeatability (a) and reproducibility (b) of an indicator.

The assessment of the situation must not therefore depend on the observer, who must have an objective assessment. If animal welfare assessments become widespread, particularly in the context of certification or consumer communication, the number of assessors will necessarily increase. This property is therefore particularly important to ensure that the rating of the farm is not favoured or disadvantaged depending on the assessor. As with repeatability, reproducibility can be validated using photos or videos, but between two observers. Training and calibration between observers are absolutely essential to ensure the reproducibility of an indicator. Stability over time An indicator must give the same result if it is used at different times and if, during that time, welfare has not changed. Whether the indicator is measured two to three days apart or in different seasons, the result provided by the indicator must not change. Here again, this is a crucial property for comparing farms. Not all farms can be assessed at the same time, and farms with the

same level of welfare should not be given different ratings depending on the period when the assessment was carried out. Feasibility This property is important if an indicator is to be useable in a farming situation and in as many situations as possible. Several factors need to be taken into account: ease, cost and time. As far as ease of use is concerned, we need indicators which, while validated, can be used by as many people as possible without very extensive and time-consuming training. All indicators require training, but those requiring expert observers in the field will be reserved for a limited number of assessors. One solution may be to simplify the original indicator to make it more accessible. For example, the ‘body condition score’ indicator for cattle is used by vets on a five-point scale, with half-point increments (Sprecher et al., 1997). The Welfare Quality® protocol uses a three-point scoring system, distinguishing only between animals that are too thin, animals whose body condition is judged to be satisfactory, and animals that are too fat.

68

Assessing Animal Welfare

Similarly, certain indicators requiring blood samples (for example) to assess animal stress should be excluded from those used routinely to assess welfare on farms. It is not realistic to take blood samples from a large number of animals on a farm. As far as the cost of production is concerned, some indicators that can be used in an experimental situation during research activities cannot be used in a livestock situation. Either because they require specific equipment that is too expensive or too bulky to transport, or because the measurement would be too costly. Finally, it must be possible to measure an indicator within a reasonable timeframe, to avoid assessment visits lasting too long or being dissuasive due to a lack of time or human resources. An indicator often needs to be measured on several animals on the same farm to produce a representative assessment, and several indicators need to be measured to take into account all the animal welfare criteria. Observing an animal’s time budget (i.e. the time it spends on each of its activities – resting, feeding, social behaviour etc.) over a 24-hour period is therefore an indicator that cannot be used for routine assessment on a farm, even with the use of a camera.

2.3.2 Validation of the measurement method Each rearing situation is individual, and welfare concerns different species: cows, chickens, pigs, but also turkeys, rabbits etc. For the same species, animals of different breeds or ages may have particular needs and behaviours. Most indicators are specific and need to be validated for the species in question, depending on the farming system in which the animals are kept (free range, indoor etc.) and the type of animal (young, adult, in production or not, etc.). For example, the indicator used to assess the absence of hunger in a suckler cow or a dairy cow is the body condition score. But these animals naturally do not have the same morphology or conformation. If the indicator is measured in the same way, suckler cows are all likely to be rated as too fat and dairy cows as too thin, so the indicator needs to be adapted to suit the type of animal in question. Similarly, in sow

farming, there are several systems: sows raised outdoors, others in buildings on straw or slatted floors. The way in which the indicator is measured must therefore also be adapted. Validating indicators before they can be used scientifically in an assessment requires that the protocols describe the indicator perfectly, the scoring used, the way it is measured on the farm and the number of animals to be observed. Summary The evaluation of welfare in livestock farming, whatever its objective (certification, communication with consumers or implementation of an improvement approach by the farmer or veterinarian), must be objective and a true reflection of reality. The indicators used must therefore be scientifically validated before they are used. To achieve this, a number of parameters need to be verified: specificity, to ensure that we are measuring what we want to measure; sensitivity, to distinguish between different welfare situations; repeatability and reproducibility, to ensure that the results obtained are identical if the measurement is carried out several times or by different assessors; stability over time, to ensure that the indicator is not influenced by the period during which it is measured; and feasibility, to ensure that the indicator can be used easily in the field. In addition to these six properties, any indicator must also be validated by the various stakeholders involved in the evaluation (farmers, distributors etc.) so that it can be used by these various players. This requires not only that the indicator is well described and clear, and that the observers are sufficiently trained, but also that the way in which it is measured in the field is explicit and detailed.

2.4 What Integration Process Should Be Used to Assess Animal Welfare? The previous chapters have presented the categories of indicators available for assessing animal welfare, the types of animal indicators that can be used and the conditions for their validity. Welfare is a concept that is specific to each animal, but its assessment and improvement must be approached at herd level, as the solutions cannot be individual ones. Moreover each indicator provides the best possible assessment

What Integration Process Should Be Used to Assess Animal Welfare?

of one of the components of welfare, but not of welfare as a whole. The transition from an indicator measured on an animal (e.g. presence of lesions) for a given criterion (e.g. absence of injuries) to an overall welfare score for the herd corresponds to what is known as an ‘integration process’. The aim of this chapter is to explain how this integration process is organized and what choices can be made depending on what we want to assess.

would not be good. However, depending on the purpose of the assessment, the integration process may have different rationales.

2.4.2 The purpose of the integration process The type of integration process depends on the objective set for assessing welfare on a farm:

• 2.4.1 Why is an integration process necessary? Some indicators measured at individual level have to be summarized at herd level to reflect the most representative situation for all the animals. Others are measured straightaway at herd level. The results obtained are therefore extremely diverse and can be expressed in terms of figures, percentages, presence or absence. For example, in the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cows, the ‘lameness score’ indicator gives a score on a scale of 3 (no lameness; moderate lameness; or severe lameness) for each animal assessed. The ‘time taken to lie down’ indicator gives a time in seconds for each animal observed. The ‘agonistic behaviour’ indicator gives the number of aggressive interactions between animals during a given time. The first stage in the integration process, therefore, consists, for each indicator, of moving from individual measurements to a score assigned to the herd. Furthermore, as welfare is a multi-criteria concept, there is no single indicator that can be used to assess it, and several indicators need to be used and combined to cover all the criteria. The Welfare Quality® protocol for sows therefore includes 33 indicators. The second stage in the integration process consists of combining the scores obtained for each indicator at herd level to obtain an overall welfare score for the herd (Fig. 2.11). This integration process must be carried out in such a way as to obtain as accurate a representation as possible of the overall welfare of the herd, while trying to lose as little as possible of the information gathered at individual level. Indeed, the ‘average’ situation of the herd must not lead to the neglect of certain criteria that would be too degraded or certain animals whose welfare score

69

•

•

The assessment may be carried out with a view to certification or compliance with regulations, and therefore aims to check that the farm complies with a set of specifications made up of different categories to be met. In this case, the assessment will focus solely on these elements, and the integration process should ultimately make it possible to check whether or not the farm complies with the level required in each category by the specifications, and to certify, or not, the farm depending on the number of categories that must be met. The result is somewhat binary. The evaluation can be carried out to assign an overall welfare score to the farm, as in the case of labelling. In this case, the integration must allow the farm to be given an overall welfare score representing the majority of animals and all the criteria. In order to refect the real situations on farms, the number of classes needed to qualify the fnal result will be higher. This can be compared with the star-rating systems used on the internet to assess the quality of a service. The welfare categories corresponding to the stars can be ‘poor’, ‘normal’ ‘good’ ‘excellent’. The labelling developed by the association Étiquette bien-être animal, which brings together animal protection associations and distributors, proposes a fve-level classifcation for broiler chickens, ranging from ‘A: superior welfare level’ to ‘E: minimal welfare level’ (Fig. 2.12). Finally, the assessment may be carried out either to support the farmer in a diagnostic and advisory approach with a view to continuous improvement of welfare, or to assess new systems, or to carry out research in the feld of animal welfare. In these cases, the assessment should result in a much larger number of classes, or even cover all the welfare criteria, and the score for each of them should be kept to identify those that

70

Assessing Animal Welfare

INDICATOR 1: INJURIES

INDICATOR 1 SCORE

INDICATOR 2: BODY CONDITION SCORE

INDICATOR 2 SCORE

Herd Indicator Score INDICATOR 1: INJURIES

INDICATOR 1 SCORE

INDICATOR 2: BODY CONDITION SCORE

INDICATOR 2 SCORE

INDICATOR 3:

INDICATOR 3 SCORE

INDICATOR n

INDICATOR n SCORE

GLOBAL SCORE Fig. 2.11. The integration of indicators at individual or herd level and the integration of different indicators.

need to be improved as a priority. This is the principle of the improvement loop (see Chapter 2.5). Depending on the objective set, the assessment should therefore result in either a single score, or scores for certain categories, or scores for all the indicators. And, again depending on the objective pursued, the level of integration required, i.e. the degree of combination of data measured in the field will be different (Table 2.2).

The methodological choices to be made therefore depend on the objective pursued.

2.4.3 What are the main options for integrating a multitude of data? Integration of individual scores Ethical and methodological questions arise concerning the integration of individual scores.

What Integration Process Should Be Used to Assess Animal Welfare?

Animal welfare label NIVEAU ° TRE BIEN-E (printed on the ticket with the weight and price of the product, ANIMAL A SUPÉRIEUR or accessible via QR code)

A

71

Score awarded (obtained after the audit of the different operators)

B BIEN

5 evaluation levels of animal welfare

C ASSEZ BIEN D STANDARD

Rearing method

PARCOURS

ARBORÉ E MINIMAL www.etiquettebienetreanimal.fr

(from most favourable to least favourable)

(range area with tree cover, outside access, improved building, improved building or normal building)

Internet site (for information on the note and the process)

Fig. 2.12. The animal welfare label developed by the association Étiquette bien-être animal. Table 2.2. Level of precision of the assessment according to the objectives. Potential use of animal welfare assessment

Number of classes for the final score

Certification in accordance with specifications or regulations

1 to 2 classes

Labelling defining different levels of welfare Continuous improvement or assessment of new systems

Description

The level of welfare on the farm is either below, above or equal to the minimum or legal requirements. The level of welfare on the farm is 4 to 5 classes low/normal/good/excellent. Numerous classes that can cover The score for each criterion is all the welfare criteria individualized and can range from very poor to very good.

First, given that welfare is individual, the question is whether to integrate the assessments obtained on individual animals into an overall assessment of welfare at herd level, or whether to retain these individual assessments. From a pragmatic point of view, the individual solution does not seem very relevant. Assessing all the animals in a herd is feasible if the number of animals is limited, as in some cattle farms, but becomes unrealistic if the number of individuals is very large, as is the case in pig and poultry farming or in large cattle herds. Furthermore, an individual assessment would not allow any conclusions to be drawn either on the overall level of welfare or on the solutions to be applied to improve it. The individual information must therefore be summarized at farm level, resulting in a single score for each indicator. Should we then choose the average of the indicator score obtained for each individual, favour (should we then choose, favour X or Y) a maximum percentage of individuals with very degraded scores that should not be exceeded

(e.g. not more than 10% of the animals assessed having a very degraded lesion score), or on the contrary favour a minimum percentage of individuals with high welfare scores?

•

•

Choosing the average gives an overall picture but has the disadvantage of allowing compensation between individuals whose welfare criterion is perfectly respected, who will pull the average up and potentially hide the others, for whom this welfare criterion is not respected at all. Choosing a maximum percentage of individuals with a degraded score makes it possible to identify situations where too many individuals are unwell. If the number of individuals exceeds the limit, this option also makes it possible to detect a deterioration in welfare at an early stage and avoid leading to uncontrolled situations. However it has the disadvantage of only highlighting poor results, even if the average result is satisfactory.

72

Assessing Animal Welfare

It is also necessary to determine whether the aim of integration is to assess the frequency of disorders or their severity. For example, do we want to score in the same way a farm where there is a lot of lameness but where the lameless is always mild and a farm where there is much less lameness but always severe? The choice is a difficult one, and one solution is to authorize weightings according to the stage of severity. For example, in the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cows, the score for the lameness criterion takes into account the percentage of lame animals with a different weighting for severe lameness (7) and mild lameness (2), with severely lame animals having a greater impact on the score than slightly lame animals. The final characteristic to bear in mind when determining the choice of integration process is the nature of the data that is measured and collected. We have seen that some indicators give results in nominal form, i.e. data that can be named but not ordered. These are usually binary data – absence/presence; above/below the threshold – for which integration poses no particular problem. Alongside this nominal data, there is ordinal data, which can be ordered. These are expressed in the form of graduations or classes, for example: very lean, lean, normal, fat, very fat. Here we see five classes, and integration is less easy and raises questions. Is the difference between two successive classes always the same or different? To take the example of the animal’s body condition again, is the deterioration in welfare the same if the animals move from the ‘normal body condition’ category to ‘lean body condition’ or if they move from the ‘lean body condition’ category to the ‘very lean body condition’? Biologically, it is highly likely that the welfare of the animals is more degraded with a very lean body condition. This raises the question of whether ordinal data with a herd average calculated over the different classes is appropriate in these cases, or whether it would be better to focus on a percentage of animals in the extreme categories, for example a percentage of animals that are too fat or too thin that should not be exceeded. Other data can be quantitative, i.e. measured precisely, and can be expressed in different units: centimetres, seconds etc. If we take the example of flight distance, the same difference of 50 cm between two scores can result from measuring,

in one case, an animal fleeing from a human at a distance of 2.5 m and another at a distance of 2 m, and, in another case, an animal fleeing at a distance of 50 cm and another allowing to be touched by a human. In both cases, there is a difference of 50 cm, but the impact of this same distance in terms of evaluating the human–animal relationship is certainly not the same. The interpretation is indeed not necessarily proportional to the difference. Specific mathematical methods are therefore used in certain evaluation protocols to take into account these aspects relating to cardinal data. Integration of herd scores Once integration has produced a single score for each indicator, the question arises as to how to integrate the scores for each indicator and each criterion to produce an overall welfare score. Depending on their sensitivities, the people behind the evaluation protocol may decide to attribute equal importance to all the criteria, or on the contrary to give priority to certain criteria that they deem to be a priority for the animal’s welfare. For example, some people may want to give greater weight to health as a more decisive criterion than behaviour, and therefore give it more weight in the overall score. Others might consider behaviour to be more important than health. To take the example of calf hutches (Fig. 2.13) where the animals can be housed individually or in groups, scientific publications show that, in the very first weeks of life, individual rather than group housing, by limiting the transmission of infectious diseases, is more favourable to the health criterion. However, it reduces the possibility of interaction between the animals and therefore gives a less favourable result for the behaviour criterion. Depending on the choices made when developing the integration process of a protocol calf pens can produce different overall welfare scores. Intermediate solutions, such as pair-housing, are now being developed. Another ethical consideration is whether compensation between criteria is permitted in integration, i.e. whether it is possible to make up for a very deficient sector by other excellent sectors. If we take the example of the baccalauréat, it is possible to fail one subject and make up for it in another. This makes it possible to choose which

Application through a Number of Assessment Protocols

73

Fig. 2.13. Two types of housing focusing on health or behaviour.

subjects to focus on and which to neglect. If we take the two examples of health and behaviour, can an excellent assessment for the health criterion in a farm compensates for the very poor or unsatisfactory possibilities to express behaviour or should we demand a minimum level in all criteria? This ethical question must be settled before choosing an integration process. In the interests of the animal, and insofar as welfare is a multi-criterion issue and all the criteria are important, it seems preferable that no compensation should be accepted and that no criterion should be totally neglected on a farm. Nevertheless, when designing the assessment protocol, it may be possible to envisage a certain degree of weighting in the integration that would make it possible to give priority to certain criteria that are deemed more important than others, or that seem to need to be improved over others. By giving them more weight in the final score, these criteria will be particularly decisive for the farmer who does not want a negative evaluation, and therefore particularly followed by him. The choice of weighting criteria in a protocol can become a real lever for progress. The principle adopted for the main methods used today to assess animal welfare is that scores can be weighted, without allowing compensation, i.e. not allowing an extremely poor criterion to be made up for by other excellent criteria. For all these reasons, assessment protocols are generally designed taking into account scientific knowledge, but also the opinions of

people with different sensitivities, in order to find the compromises that are most favourable to animal welfare, without neglecting the realities that need to be improved as a priority in the field. The Welfare Quality® protocol was drawn up by scientists working with representatives of animal protection associations, production sectors and consumers. Summary Welfare is individual and multi-criteria. Quite often, indicators are used to assess a single criterion for a single animal. However, in livestock farming, the assessment must give a picture of all the animals and an overall welfare score.We therefore need to combine the data collected individually to obtain a herd score and combine the scores for each indicator to obtain an overall welfare score. This is known as the integration process. This process must follow certain rules depending on the objectives being pursued. It is important to keep these rules in mind when designing the evaluation protocol, but also when using it, so that you know what it is really measuring.

2.5 Application through a Number of Assessment Protocols 2.5.1 The Welfare Quality® protocol The Welfare Quality® protocol stems from the European project of the same name, which ran

74

Assessing Animal Welfare

from 2004 to 2010 and involved partners from over 40 institutions in 13 countries (Fig. 2.14). In addition to scientists, members of civil society, farmers and representatives of animal protection associations were also involved in the project,

particularly with regard to the ethical choices that had to be made (see Chapter 2.4). The aim was to develop scientifically validated tools for assessing the welfare of animals kept for farming purposes, enabling the results obtained to be

Fig. 2.14. Welfare Quality® protocols (http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/en-us/home/).

Application through a Number of Assessment Protocols

summarized in clear, standardized information. The project resulted in assessment protocols for three species: pigs (pregnant and suckling sows and fattening pigs), cattle (dairy cows, fattening cattle and veal calves) and poultry (broilers and laying hens). Principles and criteria for welfare Four principles, derived from the ‘five freedoms’ (see Part 1), have been adopted to define an animal’s welfare:

• • • •

good feeding: Are the animals properly fed and watered? good housing: Do animals have comfortable accommodation? good health: Are animals in good health? appropriate behaviour: Does the animal’s behaviour refect an optimal emotional state?

To be more precise and easier to assess in the field, these principles have been broken down into 12 criteria. Each principle comprises two to four independent criteria (Table 2.3) (Botreau et al., 2007a). To assess the criteria in the field, one or more indicators per criterion have been selected. These indicators are essentially based on measurements on animals. The validation of the indicators focused on the characteristics presented in Chapter 2.3, with particular attention paid to the feasibility property, principally so that people with no specialized skills in animal behaviour or veterinary Table 2.3. The four principles and 12 criteria of Welfare Quality®. Principles

Criteria

Good nutrition

No prolonged hunger Absence of prolonged thirst Sleeping comfort Thermal comfort Ease of movement No injuries No diseases No pain due to reading practices Expression of social behaviour Expression of other behaviours Good human–animal relationship Positive emotional state

Good housing Good health

Appropriate behaviour

75

expertise could contribute to the assessment. This choice was made so that the protocol could be widely deployed and used by as many assessors as possible after a short training course. Where animal-based indicators did not exist or did not meet the validation criteria, the protocol designers selected environmental-based indicators that would allow the criterion in question to be assessed as accurately as possible. For example, there was no animal-based indicator for assessing the criterion ‘absence of prolonged thirst’ in adult cattle. It was therefore decided to select environmental indicators such as the number of water points, their flow rate and cleanliness, on the assumption that if they were functional and in sufficient number, cattle could easily drink and not suffer from thirst. In sows, on the other hand, the criterion of ‘absence of prolonged hunger’ can be assessed through the animal’s body condition, using a scale widely used by vets. For example, 33 indicators are used for dairy cows (Table 2.4), 35 for laying hens and 27 for fattening pigs. These indicators and the way in which they are measured are fully described in the Welfare Quality® assessment protocols. Calculating scores Once all the indicators have been measured on the farm, a single score for the farm is calculated for each indicator. The scores for the indicators participating in the same criterion are combined to calculate a score for each principle. The overall welfare score is determined as a function of these principle scores (Fig. 2.15) (Botreau et al., 2007b). Each criterion and principle score is expressed on a scale from 0 to 100, with 0 being the lowest score and reflecting the fact that the situation is the worst with regard to that welfare criterion, and 100 being the highest score indicating that the situation is optimal. Two other thresholds are defined: 20 and 55, the level being downgraded if the score is below 20 and fair if it is between 20 and 55. Given the diversity of the indicators, the units in which they are expressed, and the ethical and methodological choices that have been made, the calculation of criteria scores is highly variable. Overall, there are three main types of calculation:

•

When all the indicators for a given criterion are measured at herd level and are expressed using a small number of categories

76

•

•

Assessing Animal Welfare

When the observed prevalence reaches a value equal to half the alarm threshold, an alert is assigned. Alarms and alerts are counted at farm level. They are then used to calculate a weighted sum, which is transformed into a score using a special mathematical function. The criterion scores are then combined to obtain a score for each of the four principles using a mathematical formula that is detailed in the Welfare Quality® assessment booklets. The scores obtained for each principle are then combined to determine the ‘overall welfare’ category in which the farm is then placed. Four categories are distinguished: ‘excellent’, ‘improved’, ‘acceptable’ and ‘unclassified’. The threshold for excellence is set at 80, for improvement at 55, and for acceptability at 20, taking into account the principle of non-

(in particular nominal data), a decision tree can be used to determine the criterion score (e.g. the ‘absence of prolonged thirst’ criterion, Fig, 2.16). When a single indicator assesses the frequency and severity of a problem (ordinal data), a weighted sum is used to determine the criterion score (e.g. ‘absence of lameness’ criterion, Fig. 2.17). When the indicators of the same criterion give results measured on different scales, the data obtained are compared with alarm thresholds (the limit between what is considered normal or abnormal), and the number of indicators exceeding the threshold is used to calculate the criterion score (e.g. criterion ‘absence of diseases in broilers’, Table 2.5).

Table 2.4. The 33 indicators used to score the 12 welfare criteria in the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cows. Criteria

Indicators

No prolonged hunger Absence of prolonged thirst

Body condition score Number of troughs, operation of troughs, cleanliness of water, water flow rate Time taken to lie down, collision with equipment while lying down, animals lying down partially or completely outside the lying area, cleanliness of udder, flanks, upper and lower limbs No indicator Tethering, access to an outdoor exercise area or pasture Lameness, integumentary changes Coughing, runny nose, runny eyes, runny vulva, difficult breathing, somatic cell count in milk, mortality, dystocia, downer cows Dehorning practice, tail docking Agonistic behaviour Access to pasture Avoidance distance to the feed fence Qualitative behaviour assessment

Comfort around resting

Thermal comfort Ease of movement No injuries No diseases

Indicators

Criteria

Principles

No pain due to rearing practices Expression of social behaviour Expression of other behaviours Good human–animal relationship Positive emotional state

Global evaluation

˜ 30

12

4

1

Fig. 2.15. The Welfare Quality® protocol integration process.

Application through a Number of Assessment Protocols

77

Score Yes

Yes

Are the water points clean?

Yes

No

Are there 2 accessible water points?

No

Are there 2 accessible water points?

Are there enough water points?

No

Are the water points clean?

Yes No

Are there 2 accessible water points?

100 80 60 45 55 40

Are there 2 accessible water points?

35 20

Fig. 2.16. Decision tree for calculating the score for the ‘absence of thirst’ criterion in fattening pigs (From Welfare Quality®) The percentage of mildly lame animals and the percentage of severely lame animals are combined into a weighted sum with a relative weight of 2 for mild lameness and 7 for severe lameness. Then this sum is transformed into an index varying from 0 to 100. Lameness index: I = 100 – [((2 x mild lameness in %) + (7 x severe lameness in %))/7] Using a mathematical formula, this index is then transformed into a score. 100

Score

80 60 40 20 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percentage of cows showing lameness (weighted according to severity)

100

Fig. 2.17. Calculation of the ‘absence of lameness’ score for dairy cows. (From Welfare Quality®)

compensation explained above. A principle with an excellent score does not compensate for a principle with an unclassified score. Therefore, to be classified as excellent, a farm must not only have two excellent principle scores but, above all, no acceptable or unclassified principle scores. Similarly, a farm can be improved if two of the principle scores are above 55, and especially if none of the principles is ‘unclassified’. An example is given in Fig. 2.18. The example of the Welfare Quality® evaluation protocol is used to present one method among others for moving from a large number of simple measurements to a complex evaluation by trying to synthesize the information

without losing its richness; in particular, the percentage of individuals in extreme classes. This method provides an objective assessment of welfare on a farm, but also aims to provide advice to farmers, focusing on critical points and areas for improvement. It should be borne in mind that the result of the assessment must not only be conducive to an improvement in the animals’ welfare but must also be motivating for the farmer: he will certainly be able to see the areas where there is room for improvement but also those where welfare is positive, which makes it possible to reward his work. Another aim of these protocols is to provide consumers with information about welfare on farms.

78

Assessing Animal Welfare

Application of the protocol in livestock farming To be carried out correctly and avoid introducing bias, the assessment visit must follow a precise methodology. It is important to ensure that the indicators are measured in a certain order and that the whole building and enough animals are observed to ensure a representative assessment. First, the assessor should explain to the farmer how the visit will be carried out, depending on its objective (Is it a certification visit or an improvement visit?), the various measurements that will be carried out and in what order. The farmer should Table 2.5. Use of alarm thresholds applied to indicators to calculate a score. In broiler farming, the following diseases are assessed at farm level and at the slaughterhouse: ascites, dehydration, septicaemia, hepatitis, pericarditis and subcutaneous abscesses. The prevalence of each of these conditions is compared with an alarm threshold corresponding to the threshold above which a health control plan must be implemented at farm level. (Adapted from Welfare Quality®) Affliction

Alarm threshold (%)

Ascites Dehydration Sepsis Hepatitis Pericarditis Subcutaneous abscesses

100

1 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1

Farm 1 Excellent

80

Farm 2

Improved

also be told what is expected of him during the visit (Does he have to be present? Are there plans to interview him? etc.); and he should be asked for permission to enter the pens and take photographs. Indicators should be measured in advance to avoid the results of one measurement being distorted by an earlier one. This is particularly important for behavioural indicators, as the animals’ behaviour can be modified by the presence of the assessor. It is therefore generally advisable to begin the assessment visit by measuring the behavioural indicators before proceeding to measure the other indicators, which are unlikely to be changed, such as environmental and health indicators. Among the behavioural indicators, the assessment of the human–animal relationship is most often carried out by observing the reaction of the animals to the presence or approach of the assessor. If this assessment is carried out after the assessor has been present with the animals for some time, the animals’ reaction may be weaker because they have become accustomed to this presence; or, on the contrary, it may be exacerbated if the assessor has previously made sudden gestures. It is therefore generally advisable to measure this indicator at the very beginning of the visit. The other behavioural indicators should then be measured before moving on to the health assessment of the animals or the interview with the farmer. Furthermore, some observations can only be made at certain times of the day or during periods of animal activity. In dairy cattle, the

Welfare principles Principle scores in the four farms

Overall rating: category

2 scores > 80 and 2 others > 55

Excellent

2 scores > 55 and 2 others > 20

Improved

3 scores > 20 and 1 score > 10

Acceptable

Standards not met

Unclassified

Score

60

40

Acceptable

Farm 3 Farm 4

20 Unclassified

0 Food Accommodation Health

Behaviour

Fig. 2.18. Determining the overall score from the principle scores. (From Welfare Quality®)

Application through a Number of Assessment Protocols

79

Table 2.6. Course of a visit to a dairy farm using the Welfare Quality® protocol. Day

Period Objective

J-1 During milking

1

Just after milking During the morning

2 3 4

During the afternoon

Measure

Organization of the visit: times, number of animals, buildings etc. Observing the operation 1. Overall vision of the farm 2. ‘Ease of movement’ criterion Behavioural observations ‘Human–animal relationship’ criterion Behavioural observations ‘Emotional state’ criterion Behavioural observations 1. ‘Social behaviour’ criterion 2. ‘Comfort around resting’ criterion 3. ‘Absence of illness’ criterion

5

Health observations 1. ‘Absence of illness criterion 2. ‘Comfort around resting’ criterion 3. ‘Injuries’ criterion 4. ‘No prolonged hunger’ criterion 5. ‘No injuries’ criterion

6

Observations on resources ‘Absence of prolonged thirst’ criterion Interview with the farmer 1. ‘Expression of natural behaviour’ criterion 2. ‘Absence of pain’ criterion 3. ‘No illness’ criterion

7

time between the end of milking and the moment when the cows go to bed is, on average, two to three hours. Observation of lying down should be scheduled at this time, and not when the cows are eating (Table 2.6). Finally, the order of measurements must also take account of the farmer’s constraints. If his presence is required (e.g. to question him about his practices) when he has to be absent, it may be necessary to modify the order of the measurements initially planned. Similarly, if the animals have to be penned for observation, it is necessary to plan with the farmer when this is possible, depending on his organization. In order to have a representative assessment of the whole herd, it is also necessary to

Telephone 1. Diagram of the building, identification of observation points and segments 2. Type of building Avoidance distance test Qualitative behaviour assessment 1. Agonistic behaviour 2. Lying down: proportion of cows lying in and out of the lying area, time taken to lie down, etc. 3. Cough 1. Clinical signs: jetage, eye discharge, vulval discharge, diarrhoea 2. Cleanliness of hind legs, hind quarters, udder 3. Integumentary changes: abraded hair, lesions, swelling etc. 4. Body condition score 5. Lameness: locomotion score Observation of watering equipment: number, flow rate, cleanliness etc. 1. Interview with the farmer: grazing management, access to an exercise area etc. 2. Interview with the farmer: pain management during convenience practices 3. Consultation of milk recording data (cells), declarations to the Établissement de l’élevage (mortality), health record (downer cows) etc.

organize the visit, particularly for individual animal measurements, behavioural assessments to be carried out on a group of animals or analysis of the resources provided to the animals (number of drinking troughs etc.). If the farm has several buildings or several batches, all the buildings or all the batches must be studied. For animal measurements, the number of animals in each building or batch must be taken into account. As for behavioural indicators measured on the whole herd (e.g. number of agonistic behaviours), it is necessary to consider all the areas occupied by the animals. To do this, it is often necessary to define different observation segments corresponding to the surface area that can be covered correctly without moving. These zones

80

Assessing Animal Welfare

must take into account all the space available for the animals, even a remote corridor or a cul-de-sac in the building. The total observation time is then divided by the number of segments defined beforehand, and each of the zones is examined successively for the time calculated (Fig. 2.19). If the number of segments is limited, it is advisable to repeat the recordings to get an overall idea of the animals’ activity. For example, if a watering area is only observed when the animals are at rest, it will not be possible to detect any competition due to difficult access to the troughs. At the end of the visit, it is advisable to give the farmer very quick feedback on how the visit went, specifying whether it went well or not. Depending on the experience of the assessor and the farmer, it may be useful to discuss with the farmer the main observations and critical points detected, without going into detail, as additional calculations will often have to be made. These initial results enable an initial discussion to take place with the farmer, which will be beneficial both in terms of his better understanding and perception of the state of welfare of his animals, the housing conditions and the reasons for the situation observed, and allow him to interpret the evaluation report.

An assessment report should be sent promptly after the visit. Depending on the type of assessment carried out, it will comment on the different scores for criteria and principles, as well as the category of welfare achieved. If the visit is part of an improvement process, it may propose corrective action (see Chapter 2.6). 2.5.2 Other Welfare Quality® protocols The Welfare Quality® protocol is the benchmark for assessing animal welfare on farms. Because it is scientifically exhaustive, it is sometimes criticized for taking a long time to carry out on a farm. Observations often take up to a day, which makes it difficult to apply in a commercial context. Other protocols have therefore been developed based on certain indicators and the methodology of the Welfare Quality® protocol, such as the AWIN protocols for other species (sheep, goats, horses etc.). This is also the case for protocols developed jointly by scientists, technical institutes and farmers and in close collaboration with animal protection associations and distributors, with the aim of limiting the

Fig. 2.19. Different observation points on a building to cover all zones.

Application through a Number of Assessment Protocols

length of the assessment visit. One example is the Boviwell protocol used in cattle farming: designed by 16 agricultural organizations and Moy Park Beef Orleans, it has now been adopted by the entire beef industry. This is also the case for the Ebene® protocols developed by the Institut Technique de l’Aviculture (Itavi) for poultry and rabbit farms, and the Tibena® tools developed by the Terrena co-operative and BEEP by the Institut du Porc (IFIP) for pig and cattle farms. Ebene® illustrates the development of simplified tools. This voluntary assessment method enables broiler poultry and rabbit farmers to carry out self-monitoring and identify areas for improvement. A Smartphone application has also been developed to simplify the assessment, which takes around an hour to complete, and to summarize the results directly, as all the calculations have been integrated into the application. The assessment is based on the four principles and 12 criteria of Welfare Quality®. It gives priority to indicators based on animals, but also uses indicators based on the environment. The methodology for implementing the protocol is well described for each species and includes different stages. For example, for broiler poultry reared in buildings, the assessment must be

81

carried out during the ‘end of batch’ period (before departure for the abattoir) and in three stages: a questionnaire grouping together all the environmental indicators (availability of feed troughs, available surface area etc.); a behavioural protocol (distribution of animals, specific behaviours such as dust bathing, interaction with fellow birds etc.); and a health protocol (lame, injured, immobile animals etc.). A protocol for observing the run is also included for animals with access to the outdoors. Observations on animals require sampling to represent all the animals without observing them all, which would take too long. Sampling is described in the protocols for each species and explained during training sessions on how to use the tool. Thanks to the mobile application, the results are visible at the end of the assessment in the form of a radar diagram in which the farm’s results are positioned in relation to the assessments carried out on other farms in the same producer group (25% best assessments, majority of scores, 25% worst) (Fig. 2.20). This allows the farmer to compare his scores with those of other similar farms. The result can also be compared with previous assessments, particularly if the farmer has

Criterion 1 Criterion 12

Criterion 2

Criterion 11

Criterion 3

Criterion 4

Criterion 10

Criterion 9

Criterion 5

Criterion 8

Criterion 6 Criterion 7

Exploitation

Majority of scores

25% worse

25% better

Fig. 2.20. The result of an Ebene® evaluation, represented by a radar diagram. Each point corresponds to the score obtained for each of the 12 criteria.

82

Assessing Animal Welfare

taken corrective action to improve the welfare of his animals. 2.5.3

Summary Animal welfare can be assessed for a number of reasons on a farm: to give the farm an overall score, to provide a diagnosis prior to an improvement initiative, or to inform consumers about the level of welfare. The Welfare Quality® protocol, which has been scientifically validated and has been the subject of numerous consultations between the various players, is often used as a reference. However, simplified protocols have been developed and can be used in livestock farming.

Labelling developed by the Animal Welfare Label Association

The first initiative was devised by three animal protection associations (La Fondation droit animal, éthique et sciences, Compassion in World Farming France, and l’œuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoir), in collaboration with the Casino Group. At the beginning of 2021, the approach will be followed by the association Étiquette bien-être animal, which brings together four associations, five players from the distribution, retail and catering sectors, and five producer and processor organizations (http:// www.etiquettebienetreanimal.fr/). The aim of this initiative is to increase the transparency of products sold. It also aims to support the industry in moving towards conditions that are more respectful of animals, both during rearing and during transport and slaughter, by promoting best practice. An assessment protocol is currently available for broiler farms, but the association’s ambition is to develop the approach for other types of production and species. The work in progress is based on a reference framework developed in partnership with the Laboratoire d’innovation territorial Ouest territoires d’élevage (LIT Ouesterel association), supported by the Institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture, l’alimentation et l’environnement (INRAE). This reference framework includes 230 indicators based on the environment or the animals and enables the farm to be classified on a five-level scale, which is indicated on the product’s marketing label: A = superior animal welfare; B = good; C = fairly good; D = standard; and E = minimal. The first three levels recognize practices that guarantee a significant improvement in animal welfare, and have an increasing level of requirement, with, for example, the obligation of external access in levels A and B. Levels D and E inform the consumer that the practices correspond to a minimum regulatory level (E) or to additional requirements with the implementation of progress plans in the buildings (D). Farm assessments are carried out by independent inspection bodies.

2.6 The Welfare Improvement Loop We have already looked at various protocols for objectively assessing welfare in livestock farming. We also saw that this assessment could serve as the basis for a continuous improvement approach, initiated by the farmer himself or by an external advisor such as a vet. This improvement on a farm involves four stages that take place in a precise order and form a loop that can be repeated at will to achieve a better level of welfare with each iteration (Fig. 2.21):

• • • •

stage 1: objective, scientifically validated assessment of animal welfare, highlighting the most deteriorated welfare criteria on the farm; stage 2: identifcation of the risk factors associated with the criteria identifed as the most deteriorated in the frst stage; stage 3: proposal and implementation of corrective actions to resolve the risk factors identifed in stage 2; and stage 4: evaluation of the actions implemented thanks to a new welfare assessment, thus closing the loop.

The last stage should, a priori, show a better result than the first stage, demonstrating that the welfare of the animals on the farm has been improved. If this is the case, the loop is closed, and either the process stops there or the farmer and/or the external advisor decide to start a new loop to improve other criteria that need to be improved and that were not taken into account during the first assessment, thus initiating a continuous improvement process.

The Welfare Improvement Loop

83

Animal welfare assessment

Identification of animal welfare risk factors

Proposals for solutions to be implemented

Improved animal welfare

Fig. 2.21. The welfare improvement loop. (After Whay, 2007)

If the result at the end of the loop is not improved, it will be necessary to start again at step 2 and identify new risk factors or propose new actions. Steps 2, 3 and 4 are not specific to improving animal welfare and can be applied to all problems encountered on a farm, whether they be health problems or reduced performance or reproduction, for example.

2.6.1

will have poorer scores. The criteria with the lowest scores should be given priority for improvement (Fig. 2.22). It is important to prioritize the criteria to be improved, as not all the improvements can be made at once, and it is necessary to start with the points that are most detrimental to the animals’ welfare.

2.6.2 Stage 2: Identify the factors causing degradation

Stage 1: assessing animal welfare

This stage provides an initial assessment of animal welfare on the farm. It is the starting point for the process, and at the end of the loop it will also serve as a reference for the new assessment, to check that the situation has indeed improved. In the context of continuous improvement, the aim of the assessment is not to arrive at a final score but to identify precisely the welfare criteria that need to be improved, i.e. those with the lowest score, with a high degree of detail. The next steps in the improvement loop, whether in terms of risk factors to be identified or corrective actions to be implemented, will have to focus on the specific points to be improved and not on overly general aspects of the farm. At the end of this initial assessment, some criteria will have very good scores, while others

Once we have identified the welfare criteria that need to be improved as a priority, the second step is to understand the reasons behind these poor scores and to identify the risk factors that are at their root. For each criterion, scientific literature and technical experience have identified a number of factors that may be responsible for a deterioration in welfare. They may be linked to:

•

•

the animals’ physical environment (e.g. the size of the pens can reduce the comfort criterion if they are too small, or the feed ration can reduce the good feeding criterion if it is not correctly balanced); the social environment (such as too high a density or mixing of animals, which can

84

Assessing Animal Welfare

CRITERION 1

CRITERION 2

CRITERION 3

CRITERION n

SCORE CRITERION 1

SCORE CRITERION 2

SCORE CRITERION 3

SCORE CRITERION n

No hunger

No injuries

CRITERION 1

SCORE CRITERION 1

Sleeping comfort

CRITERION 3

SCORE CRITERION 3

Improvement of the criteria with the lowest score

Fig. 2.22. Principle for identifying the criteria with the lowest scores after an assessment.

degrade the behavioural expression criterion); the relationship with the farmer or the farmer’s practices (e.g. unpleasant or painful handling can reduce the pain-free criterion); or the animals themselves (e.g. the experience of the animals can degrade the human– animal relationship criterion, or the animals’ conformation can degrade the comfort criterion if it is not adapted to the equipment).

the farm in question, the aim is to identify which of these factors are actually responsible for a poor score for the criterion, and which should be the subject of corrective action in stage 3. This requires expert appraisal and analysis by the farmer or advisor.

It is important to list these risk factors, which are often very numerous, exhaustively for each criterion in order to be sure not to forget any, even if the most probable, according to the scientific literature, should be given priority. For

Once the factors causing the deterioration have been accurately identified, corrective action can be proposed to the farmer by an external advisor. This stage is probably the most difficult, as the changes to be planned will often require the

• •

2.6.3 Stage 3: propose and implement corrective actions

The Welfare Improvement Loop

farmer’s time, cost money or radically alter his practices. A few rules need to be observed to facilitate their acceptance and implementation by the farmer. First of all, these measures must be few in number, generally no more than three to four at any one time, and prioritized according to their relevance, feasibility or timeframe for implementation, in the short or long term. Too many actions risk demotivating farmers and making it more difficult to organize them. The solutions must therefore be considered and limited, and those with the greatest impact on the criteria identified in step 1 will be proposed as a priority. We can therefore see that steps 1 and 2 must be carried out perfectly if the actions suggested in step 3 are to be relevant. Secondly, it is important to ensure that the solutions recommended do not lead to a deterioration in other welfare criteria (e.g. deciding not to dehorn animals in order to limit pain may lead to an increase in injuries if the building enables confrontation). Even if we focus on certain criteria as a priority, we still need to take a global view in order to propose appropriate solutions.

85

Finally (and this is the crucial point), whatever solutions are put forward, they must be discussed with the farmer and adapted to his constraints in order to obtain his agreement (Fig. 2.23). Improvements in animal welfare must not be achieved at the expense of the farmer’s welfare if they are to be implemented effectively. A less effective solution that is implemented is preferable to the best solution that the farmer will not implement. 2.6.4 Stage 4: evaluating the measures implemented Once the corrective actions have been implemented, the criteria identified in step 1 will theoretically score better in this second assessment. If this confirms an improvement, it can be used as the basis for a new improvement loop for other criteria. If not, it is likely that the risk factors have been incorrectly identified or that the proposed actions are not sufficient. We then have to start again from the beginning to try to improve these criteria.

Fig. 2.23. Discussion of the results of the assessment between the farmer and the assessor is essential if the measures to be implemented are to be adapted.

86

Assessing Animal Welfare

2.7.1 Overview of tools available in the field

Summary Assessing animal welfare is a first step. But the ultimate aim is to improve animal welfare on farms. To achieve this, four steps must be followed methodically: assessment; identification of risk factors; proposal of corrective actions; and evaluation following these actions.

2.7 The Contribution of New Technologies to Assessing and Improving Animal Welfare In the previous chapters, we discussed animal welfare indicators and how to measure them. The aim of this chapter is to present the place and role of new technologies, which can be used to provide logistical support on a daily basis on many farms and in a variety of ways. They open up the possibility of better understanding and analysing of animals, their rhythms, behaviour and needs. However, while they offer interesting prospects, we must guard against the potentially harmful effects of these tools.

The use of information and communication technologies (ICT) for clinical purposes to improve animal health is commonly referred to as ‘e-health’. These tools are aimed primarily at farmers but also at all those involved in livestock farming: vets and technicians, who can use them to obtain information, either locally or remotely, to improve the health and welfare of their animals, or the cooperative, which can monitor production data (Figs 2.24 and 2.25 are examples). Today, the vast majority of new technologies capable of providing information on welfare indicators involve connected tools that enable many parameters to be recorded automatically, remotely and computerized. There are currently four main reasons for equipping animals:

•

to monitor or distract them. This is the case with cameras that can be used to remotely monitor the progress of a pregnant female

Abdominal belt abdominal contractions Vaginal temperature sensor, tail position

RFID chip loop Camera positions, behavior

Eating rumination and activity collar

Physical activity pedometer

Milk analysis: hormones, enzymes

Ruminal temperature and pH bolus

Scale (live weight, posture for lameness)

Fig. 2.24. Overview of tools available for monitoring dairy cows. (From Vet IN Tech Collective, 2018)

The Contribution of New Technologies to Assessing and Improving Animal Welfare

Image monitoring Mobility Density Intrusion into the building

Gas monitoring NH3 CO2

Water monitoring Water volume sensor Dosing pump sensor Biocides, treatments

Building monitoring Temperature indoor/outdoor Humidity ventilation Consumption water Food consumption

Identification RFID ring (limited to ‘high value’ animals)

87

Food monitoring Silos connected to feed factory

Weight monitoring (daily)

Pest monitoring Rats/mice

Fig. 2.25. Main connected tools in poultry farming. (from Vet IN Tech Collective, 2018).

• •

•

giving birth, or tools designed to keep an eye on pets, and possibly to keep them playing while the owner is away; to locate them, for example using GPS trackers to fnd animals in the building, check their presence at pasture or fnd a pet if it is lost; to evaluate or control feeding using sensors that provide information on the number of meals eaten by each animal and the quantity of feed ingested. Historically, the Automatic Concentrate Feeder (ACF) was one of the frst connected tools created for animals and has been used on livestock farms for over 50 years. Body condition, measured by 3D reconstruction using image analysis, is another example of a feed-related service; and to measure biological or behavioural parameters, such as animal activity (using activimeters like our connected watches) or body temperature (using devices on cows), for example for health monitoring. Many of the behaviours recorded could be observed directly by the farmer, but these tools make

it possible to detect all the animals continuously and record data at farm level (e.g. recording coughs in pig farms). These connected tools provide access to extremely detailed and real time data in very large amounts. They produce data that were previously scarce, not available or difficult to obtain (such as the measurement of rumination in cattle), and, above all, data that can now be obtained individually and continuously. For example, we can use ruminal boluses in cattle, i.e. a sensor ingested by the animal and kept in the rumen, to measure the internal temperature or acidity inside the rumen. Ear tags can be fitted to measure daily intake, locomotion and activity via head movements, or collars fitted with microphones that record rumination-related noise and are also equipped with activimeters. These tags can be worn on the ear or as a collar. Devices can also be installed on the cattle’s tails to detect parturition by tail movements preceding expulsive efforts and to anticipate problematic parturition. Finally, some equipment

88

Assessing Animal Welfare

can be connected not to the animal but to the whole building, such as the milking robot or automatic concentrate dispensers, which retrieve data for the whole herd. In the same way as other indicators, these tools can also be unreliable, not only in terms of the tool itself, which must function perfectly under farming conditions, but also in terms of the measurements obtained: these indicators must also be validated. Information on the lifespan of these devices and their maintenance is also necessary. For example, rumination collars last around four to five years. How are tools used to measure animal welfare? As we have seen, the advantage of these tools is that they continuously collect data relating to direct indicators (e.g. time budget, body temperature) or indirect indicators of animal welfare (e.g. ambient temperature in the building or toxic gas levels, noise level to detect coughing). They can, therefore, not only help to measure animal welfare but also provide assistance to the farmer or vet, for example in continuously monitoring the effectiveness of corrective measures to improve animal welfare. To understand the potential contribution of these tools, we can start with the five freedoms and use examples to illustrate how they can be used to promote animal welfare. Freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition For livestock, we now have systems with 3D cameras present on buildings or on milking robots or which are portable; they can reconstruct the animal’s size and body condition score. This makes it possible to assess whether the animal is well fed, undernourished or overfed. Whereas, previously, the human eye had to estimate the body condition of these animals, today cameratype systems can do this on a daily basis more accurately and repeatedly. Automatic concentrate dispensers allow the animal to collect feed individually. These devices recognize the animal, which wears an identification collar, and give it an appropriate quantity of feed. It is now also possible to collect records of the animal’s drinking, either via sensors on the drinkers or via boluses in the

cattle’s rumen, which enable temperature to be measured. When the animal drinks, the temperature in the rumen drops sharply, and by monitoring the number of drops during the day it is possible to check how often the animal has taken a drink. A final example is the measurement of rumen pH. Ruminal boluses can also be used to monitor variations in acidity within the rumen, providing a detailed measurement of digestion (and, more specifically, fermentation by microorganisms) in the rumen. They therefore offer an interesting alternative for measurements that would require invasive intervention on the animal to collect samples and that can only be used in experimental situations (Fig. 2.26) in line with the 3S approach (see later in the Chapter 3.4). The absence of discomfort Some devices detect changes in physiological parameters (body temperature) alerting the farmer to a probable hyperthermia situation requiring special attention. They can also be used to monitor behaviour if they have fine GPS tracking (e.g. ear tags or collars) which reports all the animal’s movements within a building over a given period (Fig. 2.27). By summarizing the data from all the animals, it is possible to see whether certain parts of the building are not being used or, on the contrary, are being overused, and therefore to suspect certain areas of discomfort in the building. By analysing the trajectories of a single animal, we can also see that it has moved less than the previous day. Image-recognition systems can also provide information on abnormal movement sequences that could give rise to suspicions of discomfort. Thanks to these tools, it is possible to locate an animal that has strayed outside very quickly, with an alert being generated so that it can be found as quickly as possible. Freedom from pain, injury and illness Assessing pain in non-verbally communicating humans, particularly young children, is difficult because they cannot describe the pain they feel. One of the methods often used to assess pain is to use facial expression grids that are comparable to adult facial expressions. This methodology has been applied to various animal species, including horses, cattle and sheep.

The Contribution of New Technologies to Assessing and Improving Animal Welfare

pH

pH < 5,8

pH 7

5,8

6

5 4

t

Fig. 2.26. Continuous ruminal pH monitoring using a ruminal bolus. (From smaXtec)

Fig. 2.27. Virtual map of the position of cattle in a building measured using geolocation sensors in real time (every two seconds): the more occupied an area, the redder it is. The red zones (of maximum occupancy) correspond to lying or feeding areas. (© Bruno Meunier, INRAE)

89

90

Assessing Animal Welfare

Sheep probably have the most highly developed facial expression grids. Several research teams have identified highly suggestive and very specific signs of pain on the animal’s face, in particular the position of the eyeballs, the bringing together of the eyes, the frowning of the muzzle and the position of the ears. It is easy to see why artificial intelligence and visual recognition software can be used to detect facial abnormalities in animals, giving us reason to suspect that they may be in pain. In addition to these promising systems for detecting pain, the farmer or person in charge of the animals can also use tools that continuously collect health parameters and are thus able to alert the farmer to potentially sick animals: measurement of body temperature, rumination, activity, intake and movements (Fig. 2.28). When an alert is generated after a sudden or prolonged drop in one of the indicators, the farmer can examine the animal in more detail. These alerts often enable the animal to be detected and treated at an early stage in the onset of problems. These connected tools often enable earlier detection than can the human eye. Figure 2.29 shows that, in more than half the cases, mastitis was detected by a collar measuring activity, rumination and feed consumption up to two days before the farmer went to the milking parlour.

Lastly, these tools also give veterinary surgeons the opportunity to monitor the effectiveness of a treatment remotely, so they can keep an eye on how quickly the animals recover. The absence of fear and distress, and the possibility of feeling positive emotions Some image-analysis systems can detect ‘positive’ behaviour or, conversely, negative interactions. In pigs, for example, fairly sophisticated software can distinguish between two individuals who meet and face each other and are more interested in discovering each other and exploring (positive behaviour) than adopting an aggressive attitude (Fig. 2.30). This software, based on image recognition, enables the nature of animal behaviour to be recorded continuously. The expression of natural behaviour specific to the species Finally, thanks to these connected tools, we can ensure that the animal is able to express a behaviour that is natural to its species. Tools that measure the animal’s activity and its intake or rumination are capable of reconstructing an

Rumination and ingestion time in minutes per 24 hours 720

720

640

640

560

560

480

480

400

400

320

320

240

240

160

160

80

80

23/10/2019

30/10/2019

Rumination 24 h

06/11/2019

Rumination 7 d

13/11/2019 Ingestion 24 h

20/11/2019 Ingestion 7 d

Fig. 2.28. Example of alert monitoring curves, based here on the recording of rumination (measured over 24 hours or 7 days: green curves) and feed intake (measured over 24 hours or 7 days: orange and brown curves) in dairy cows. (© Élevage et Santé publique vétérinaire-VetAgro Sup department)

The Contribution of New Technologies to Assessing and Improving Animal Welfare

91

EARLIER DAY OF DETECTION DETECTION BY THE TOOL BY THE FARMER

40 30 Percentage of mastitis detected

20 10 –3

–2

–1

0

1

Days

Fig. 2.29. Time delay between detection of mastitis in dairy cows by a tool that automatically measures the animal’s activity and rumination and detection by the farmer (D0). (From Guatteo et al., 2017) AGNOSTIC INTERACTION

Fig. 2.30. Diagram of image analysis for the detection of agonistic interactions in pigs (head-to-head position, with head butting and biting).

animal’s time budget, i.e. the time spent each day moving around, eating, lying down and exploring the environment. So, these tools, particularly for activity trackers, can be used to find out where the animal is at any time – whether it is ingesting feed or ruminating while lying down, etc. – and to summarize these activities over a given period. If the time allocated to each of these activities is abnormal, alerts can be generated.

2.7.2 Ethical issues relating to connected objects Farming is now being questioned by citizens and consumers who want to be better informed and want farms to be able to show their progress. The data available give them greater confidence in livestock farming. These tools represent a real opportunity to reconnect, and, hopefully, to reconcile livestock farming and society.

92

Assessing Animal Welfare

As well as indirectly benefiting animals, these new technologies can help to improve animal welfare assessment protocols. They are not a substitute for humans but they complement them. However, the use of new technologies on farms raises ethical questions: about the composition and status of the objects themselves; about the impact of their use on the human– animal relationship; and about the use of the data generated by these objects. A legal vacuum Connected objects used for medical purposes on animals would have the status of medical devices if they were used on humans. However, human medical devices are subject to specific regulations designed to ensure the health and safety of the user. However, as surprising as it may seem, there is currently no regulatory framework in France concerning the expected efficacy or safety of connected objects used on animals. The introduction of a harmonized methodology for assessing these tools and a ‘materiovigilance’ system would undoubtedly be necessary. These tools, which continuously produce data (and sometimes alerts if the data observed deviate from that expected), can cause stress for their users, particularly when they lack specificity (alerts generated on animals that are not sick). Faced with an endless stream of data and alerts, owners can lose confidence in the tool (and stop looking at the data, at the risk of not spotting sick animals) or, on the contrary, decide indiscriminately to do something at the first alert. Better knowledge of owners about their animals via these connected devices, and the optimization of the care provided, therefore depends on the performance of the tools and their operating conditions. The lack of a specific regulatory framework for connected objects on animals means that the choice of whether or not to equip an animal rests solely with the owner. While it is clear that there can be no question of obtaining the animal’s direct consent, it is legitimate to wonder about the circumstances in which it can be freely decided whether or not to equip the animal, and whether it can simply be decided to equip animals without any controls, particularly when the objects may be invasive (number of tools, nature of the tools). The question of an opinion,

if not a validation, from a specialist in animal health or behaviour arises, in particular to validate the value of the equipment and, where appropriate, the choice of a technical solution. It is also vital that users are properly trained in the full potential of the tool. Finally, connected objects require the use of natural resources (metals, electronic circuits and rare materials that are sometimes difficult to recycle) and energy for their proper operation and the storage of associated data. Some connected objects can counterbalance these environmental impacts if they make a greater positive contribution, for example by reducing the quantities of inputs or water consumed by crops. In any case, their overall impact (benefits for the animal, the farmer and the environment) should be considered. The issue of the digital divide and white zones (zones blanches are areas where internet connection is not possible) can also lead to a lack of equity between farmers. The impact of connected objects on the human–animal relationship The diversity of connected devices available means that it is possible to access very detailed data at the level of the individual animal, which can modify or influence the perception the farmer or owner has of their animal. Farmers can now go beyond simply knowing their animals by their performance (as was possible with the first tools developed) and have access to their movements, behaviour (feeding, bedding) and location. This can lead to a better understanding of the animal and a more personalized approach. However, while this use of technology can provide real working comfort in a context of ever-decreasing labour and ever-larger herds, there is a risk of a form of distancing between the farmer and his animals. For example, a recent study of cattle farmers using heat detection systems highlighted the perceived positive impact in terms of working comfort (including safety at work due to less handling), but also the fear of a loss of animal husbandry skills (Courties, 2014; Fig. 2.31). These tools should be seen as complements to, not substitutes for, the experienced eye of the farmer. The massive and continuous collection of data of interest (e.g. milk production, growth

The Contribution of New Technologies to Assessing and Improving Animal Welfare

93

Division of labour Flexibility of schedules Absence management Weekend work Stress at the time of artificial insemination Relation human-animal Relations with employees Work time Number of farms Negative impact

Positive impact

No impact

Fig. 2.31. Impact of heat detection equipment on working comfort. (After Courties, 2014: survey of 20 farmers)

rate, behaviour, disease resistance) opens the way to what is known as high-throughput phenotyping, i.e. the collation of all the apparent characteristics of an individual, continuously and almost in real time using sensors and connected tools. This fine-tuned phenotyping is the key to carrying out studies to select animals with characteristics deemed to be of interest (such as resistance to disease, a phenotype that is very difficult to characterize conventionally). To achieve this, it is vital that the tools are co-constructed from the outset, without forgetting the end user. Connected tools could make it possible to bring out the individual in the group, and thus give the breeder back some visibility for isolated animals, particularly in large numbers. However, the opposite effect could be feared, i.e. an extreme standardization of animals leading to genetic impoverishment, or a loss of diversity through the elimination of individuals that fall outside the expected or hoped-for norms. The status and use of data from connected objects Potentially, the data collected through the various connected tools can serve several purposes and several people. A supplier is transparent if

all the purposes are made clear to the user. Furthermore, as a data collector, it must demonstrate data governance that guarantees that data are not leaked to third parties. There is also the question of how data can be used for purposes other than farming. For example, the high-throughput phenotyping data generated by these tools must be of benefit to the farmer without him having to pay twice for it (first by equipping himself, then by paying more for data of interest that he has helped to produce). Continuous and possibly remote access by veterinary surgeons to data generated by connected tools carried on animals opens up interesting prospects for teleconsultation and tele-expertise, with the potential to optimize the health and welfare of animals, particularly in areas where there are medical deserts, but also on a day-to-day basis in non-desert areas. However, the help that these tools could provide cannot overshadow the pressing need to address the issue of regional planning and ongoing health monitoring. The mass of data generated could enable us to rethink the client–veterinarian relationship, by opening up the field of remote monitoring and ‘enhanced’ clinical examination for the veterinarian, who would then have access to

94

Assessing Animal Welfare

measurements not otherwise available or on a continuous basis, whereas, at present, they are only available to him on the farm. On the other hand, farmers should not be inundated with information causing them to contact the vet as soon as they receive the first piece of information, or only contact them electronically. The animal should benefit from a complementary approach. The challenge is to explain to farmers what attitude they should adopt towards these tools, and that they cannot entirely replace care on the farm. The use of these new technologies will also require vets and owners (farmers, pet owners) to be properly trained in the use of these tools and the data and alerts they generate. So, beyond the undeniable technical advances made possible by connected tools, the fact remains that they raise ethical questions which, if not resolved, deserve to be debated. Just thinking about ethics is already being ethical! Summary New technologies are leading to the development of numerous tools that can be used to assess or improve the welfare of animals, by monitoring them, locating them, controlling their feed or measuring their biological or behavioural parameters. These tools provide access to measurements that were not previously possible, as they were often too time-consuming, and make it possible to improve the evaluation of the five freedoms. But, like all indicators, they need to be validated beforehand, both in terms of what they measure and the reliability of the measurement and the tool. Finally, their use raises ethical issues that farmers and their advisors need to consider before opting for this equipment.

2.8

General Conclusion

Animal welfare is an increasingly important issue, both in political and public debate, in regulations and on farms. Taking greater account of animal welfare can be part of a continuous improvement approach at the level of each farm, but can also, at a more global level, enable consumers to make informed purchases through the introduction of more stringent specifications. This process of improvement, whatever the reasons for it, can only be based on a prior

assessment of the animal’s state of welfare. This assessment must reflect, as accurately as possible, what the animals are actually experiencing. To achieve this, it is based on measures falling into two main complementary categories, which must be used in conjunction with each other on the farm:

• •

indicators based on the environment, to check that the conditions provided for the animals correspond to their needs and expectations; and animal-based indicators, which make it possible to truly assess the welfare of animals through the way in which they perceive their environment.

The second category includes behavioural, physiological, production and health indicators. Behavioural indicators are the earliest and most sensitive and should be used as a priority. However, all indicators are important in an overall approach to welfare. They must meet conditions of specificity, sensitivity, repeatability, reproducibility, stability over time and feasibility as they are to be scientifically validated and provide an objective assessment that accurately reflects the situation as perceived by the animals without being biased by external factors. As animal welfare is a multi-criteria issue, no single indicator can be used to fully assess it. It is therefore necessary to aggregate some of them in order to arrive at a correct representation of welfare. This aggregation must follow rules and ethical considerations that will determine the weight of the different criteria in the overall welfare score. Understanding this process is important if we are to know how a level of welfare is calculated and to what it actually corresponds. The indicators used, the aggregation process and the objectives may vary according to the various assessment models currently in use. The Welfare Quality® protocol is often used as a reference for other assessment standards that have been developed because its scientifically validated methodology provides a comprehensive approach to animal welfare. The other standards can contribute to a self-diagnosis, help a person from outside the farm to carry out an independent diagnosis, or meet the objective of informing consumers about the level of welfare on a particular farm. In addition, an increasing number of

General Conclusion

connected tools and artificial-intelligence tools are being developed to optimally reproduce the reality perceived by animals and to help gather detailed, reliable and complex information about them.

95

Whatever the assessment models and tools used, to achieve the ultimate goal of improving welfare, it is necessary to identify the risk factors that cause poor scores on certain criteria and to be able to propose solutions to farmers.

3 Improving Animal Welfare

Introduction Since the early 2000s, society’s expectations have grown with regard to improving the living conditions of animals on farms. Numerous initiatives and regulations have been put in place, and the definitions and indicators for assessing welfare have been refined. This approach must now be deployed in the field. In Part 2, we saw that concrete improvements in animal welfare first require an objective and scientific assessment, based on validated indicators and highlighting the most deteriorated criteria. The second stage consists of identifying the risk factors at the root of the deterioration in these criteria. The third stage involves proposing and implementing actions to correct the factors that are reducing welfare. Finally, it will be necessary to assess the positive impact of these actions on the welfare criteria, and possibly identify other criteria that need to be corrected or improved. This is what is called the ‘welfare improvement loop’. While assessment, the first step in the process, is essential, the stages of identifying risk factors and proposing corrective actions are just as important for concrete improvement. Part 3 is devoted to these stages. There are many risk factors in livestock farming. They may relate to the animals’ physical and social environment, their relationship

96

with the farmer or any other person working with them, but also to husbandry practices, health management or pain management, and the impact of genetic selection. These factors may exist on the farm, but also during the transport and slaughter of the animals. It would be illusory to attempt to list them all in a single book, especially as a risk factor may be present, and a source of welfare degradation, on one farm but not on another. Similarly, the solutions to be found depend on the farm, its configuration, the farmer’s practices, his motivation and his ability to change. We have therefore drawn up a broad outline for each type of problem, but neither this list nor the solutions to be found are exhaustive. These must be appropriate to the farm being assessed and to the risk factors present. They must be pragmatic and achievable and the farmer must understand them and agree to implement them. A solution that is not directly optimal, but is conscientiously implemented, is sometimes better than a perfect solution that is not applied. Chapter 3.1 focuses on improving the physical and social environment of farm animals. It lists and describes the associated risk factors and proposes strategies for enriching these environments. Chapter 3.2 focuses on relational practices with the farmer, known as the ‘human–animal

©2024 CAB International. Understanding, Assessing and Improving Farm Animal Welfare (ed. Luc Mounier) DOI: 10.1079/9781800628045.0003

Improving the Physical and Social Environment for Farm Animals

relationship’. This chapter looks at the various human interventions in livestock farming, the construction of the human–animal relationship and the importance of understanding how animals perceive humans. It also looks at ways of improving these practices. The central theme of Chapter 3.3 is health, one of the fundamental components of animal welfare, since it is one of the welfare criteria and its deteriation can lead to the deteriation in others. This chapter presents the principle of integrated health management, enabling a global approach to be taken, and uses the management of lameness in dairy cattle as an example. Chapter 3.4 is devoted to the management of animal pain. This is a priority issue in animal production, and the 2020 regulations 1 aim to eliminate painful practices. We first look at the potential sources of pain, then at ways of assessing pain, and finally at the ‘3S’ rule (suppress, substitute and soothe) to limit pain. We have chosen the examples of cattle dehorning and piglet castration. Chapter 3.5 sets out the problems associated with genetic selection, which has sometimes led to welfare problems in animals, and looks at possible solutions. Chapter 3.6 deals with the specific phases of transporting animals to the slaughterhouse and slaughtering them, where there can be a particularly high incidence of animal welfare problems. It first describes the various stages, then the potential sources of stress and pain and how to assess them, and, in the final section, it looks at ways of improving the situation. In Chapter 3.7, we explore the concept of ‘one welfare’, a concept based on the fact that animal welfare, human welfare and environmental protection are closely linked. Improving one is good for the other. Improving welfare is a win-win situation for humans, animals and the planet.

3.1 Improving the Physical and Social Environment for Farm Animals 3.1.1 Reminder of animal needs and expectations As emphasized in the definition adopted by Anses (2018), an animal’s welfare is linked to the

97

satisfaction of its needs and expectations. Needs correspond to a requirement for survival and quality of life linked to the maintenance of homeostasis and behavioural motivations. A distinction is made between physiological needs (hunger, thirst, sleep etc.) and behavioural needs (exploratory behaviour, interaction with other animals etc.). The animal’s needs vary:

• • • • •

depending on the species (the needs of a pig, a hen or a cow are not the same); depending on the breed (some breeds are hardier and do not necessarily have the same needs as more productive breeds); by age (young individuals have different needs to adults); by sex; according to physiological stage (a pregnant female does not have the same needs as a non-pregnant female).

Similarly, the animal’s expectations, which represent its capacity to anticipate an event whose valence may be positive or negative, depend on the cognitive capacities of its species and its past experience. Needs and expectations are motivational factors. Motivation corresponds to the mental processes that trigger an animal’s response at a given moment. This response varies according to the animal’s internal state (metabolic, hormonal, health etc.) and the external events it perceives. The concept of motivation therefore explains why an animal expresses a particular behaviour at a given time and not another, when its environment has not changed. The behaviour expresses the most important motivation, the one that has guided the animal’s decision making. In feeding behaviour, the need corresponds to taking food so as to no longer feel hungry. For movement, it is the ability to anticipate a positive event, such as access to food in the event of hunger, that drives the animal to move to reach the rack and feed. Finally, failure to satisfy a need or an expectation leads to a negative emotional experience, which, if it persists, can lead to a state of malaise. There is a wide range of animal-rearing conditions floor-raised (deep litter), free-range etc. (see Part 1). They vary according to species, the type of production and the age of the animals, but also according to rearing practices. The farming equipment and practices must

98

Improving Animal Welfare

aim to satisfy the animals’ needs and expectations as far as possible, and must be improved if they are causing a deterioration in their welfare. As described in Part 2, to assess whether the conditions offered to the animals correspond to their needs and expectations, it is necessary to use behavioural, physiological, health and production indicators. It is however possible to ask the animal what it wants and to what degree it wants it. This can be done using preference tests, in which the animal is given several options. Such systems have shown, for example, that cows prefer to lie down in cubicles equipped with mattresses rather than in cubicles equipped with mats or bedding. It is also possible to use motivational tests which measure the intensity of the animal’s preference in terms of increased difficulty in obtaining what it wants. Tests have shown that pigs stop pressing a lever sooner when they need to find a conspecific rather than have access to food. This suggests that pigs have a greater preference for food than for conspecifics. This chapter looks at improving the physical and social environment, as well as strategies for physical, social and occupational enrichment. The physical environment corresponds to all the elements of the housing, constituting conditions experienced continuously by the animals. The social environment refers to life and interactions with conspecifics, some of which are also experienced continuously and others at specific stages in the animal’s life, such as separation from the mother or changes in the group. Enrichment strategies can be more specific, involving, in particular, the addition of positive and cognitive stimuli.

animals kept for farming purposes, and specific directives have subsequently been drawn up for certain species or types of production. This is the case for the rearing of laying hens, broilers, pigs and calves. The farmer or keeper of the animals must take all appropriate measures to ensure that the regulations are complied with and that the animals are protected. Official inspections are carried out by the veterinary services of the Departmental Directorates for the Protection of Populations (DDPP). Every year, around 12,000 animal protection inspections are carried out to check that standards are being applied. Some of the establishments targeted are farms where animal protection could potentially be compromised (complaints, high mortality rates, detection of anomalies relating to animal welfare). However, regulatory standards are usually minimal, and animal welfare can deteriorate even when regulations are complied with. It would take too long to list all the farming conditions and welfare risk factors in this chapter. Research has shown that the same factors can be present to varying degrees in systems that are, a priori, different. For example, in pigs (95% of which are reared in France on slatted floors, 4% on bedding and only 1% free-ranging systems), the expression of the fundamental need to explore their environment, through foraging behaviour that allows them to burrow and chew, depends on the rearing system. The free-range system meets this need because the animal has access to grass and soil. This is also the case with the straw-housing system, where the animal can forage and chew straw. A concrete slatted floor system, on the other hand, cannot satisfy this need and requires an environmental enrichment strategy. Free-range farming systems

3.1.2

Improving the physical environment

Housing conditions are extremely varied, ranging from completely free-range, i.e. without access to a building, with the presence of shelters (natural or otherwise), to rearing in cages, boxes or lodges, via housing in permanent buildings or with more or less frequent access to the outdoors. Whatever these conditions, they are regulated (see Part 1). Directive 98/58/EC lays down minimum standards for the protection of

Being outdoors most often encourages the expression of the majority of behaviours: social behaviour, exploratory behaviour (with or without movement), locomotor behaviour and feeding behaviour. The complexity of the environment also meets the animals’ behavioural and cognitive needs. However, free-range farming involves a number of risk factors for animal welfare (Fig. 3.1). First of all, exposure to excessive weather conditions or meteorological hazards can lead to discomfort and even, in extreme cases, the death of the animal

Improving the Physical and Social Environment for Farm Animals

99

Risks related to weather conditions

Biosecurity and predation risks

Risks linked to parasitism

Fig. 3.1. Some risk factors that can affect the welfare of free-range animals.

through hyper- or hypothermia. The impact of the weather varies depending on the species, breed, age and period of the production cycle. Animals reared outdoors must therefore have access to natural (trees, bushes) or artificial shelter to protect them from wind, sun, cold, excessive heat and bad weather. Free-range systems can also have a negative impact on the mortality of young animals and the health status of both juvenile and adult animals, particularly as a result of parasitism, inadequate management or disease control, or inadequate biosecurity rules that do not prevent contact with wildlife. Poorly designed fences can lead to injuries. Outdoor housing can expose animals to predator attack, leading to intense fear, injury or death. Housing conditions There are many different types of housing, imposing varying degrees of restrictions on the animals’ comfort and freedom of movement. Some barns have hard, uncomfortable floors,

others have bedding; some have access to the outdoors, others do not. Whatever the characteristics of the housing system the conditions offered must allow the expression of fundamental behaviours (such as resting, feeding, movement and social relations) without adversely affecting the health status of the animals, thanks to a controlled environment, safe equipment, the possibility of isolating sick animals, etc. (Fig. 3.2). AMBIENT CONDITIONS.

Environmental parameters (temperature, humidity, ventilation, air quality and light) are important for meeting animals’ physiological needs. These parameters must be adapted to each species, but also to each physiological stage. In pig farming, for example, the thermal comfort zone is different for sows (21°C) and piglets (28°C), even though they live in the same environment. Compromises have to be found to provide a warmer zone for the piglets without compromising the sow’s welfare, for example by using an infrared lamp and insulating mats.

100

Improving Animal Welfare

Risks linked to the atmosphere of the building

Density-related risks

Equipment risks

Fig. 3.2. Some risk factors that can affect the welfare of animals kept in buildings.

Heat stress is a growing concern for livestock. Extreme heat, in particular, can seriously affect animal comfort. Regulation mechanisms therefore need to be put in place, including strict temperature control, appropriate ventilation and water-spraying equipment. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT All farm animals need to be able to walk and move around. For a long time, animals kept in buildings were tethered or penned to make them easier to approach and care for. But this also made up for the lack of straw and space, which deprives the animals of their movements and is ultimately a source of frustration. Current developments in livestock farming, whether due to new regulations or societal pressure, are moving towards greater freedom of movement and less restraint for animals. In 1991, the first directive on the protection of calves (91/629) increased the minimum space available per calf. In the same year, Directive 91/630 banned the tethering of sows.

Despite this, certain farming conditions still restrict the locomotor behaviour of animals too much (Fig. 3.3). This is the case with cage farming (rabbits, laying hens etc.). Under pressure from animal protection associations and consumers, this type of farming will soon be banned in Europe. This is also the case with tethered cows, a situation that leads to frustration when the animal’s expectations are not met. However, it has been shown that strategies can be implemented to overcome movement restrictions. For example, using an exercise area for at least an hour a day allows cows to satisfy their locomotor behaviour and has beneficial effects on their welfare: improved hoof conformation and a reduced incidence of lameness and mastitis. Most buildings allow the animals to move around. However, a minimum surface area is necessary to respect the individual space of the animals and to avoid overcrowding. Restricting this surface area can lead to less tolerance between animals, resulting in more aggression, or

Improving the Physical and Social Environment for Farm Animals

101

needs are not always taken into account. In pig farms, for example, the prevailing slatted-floor system does not allow the animals to forage and chew as they are generally able to do outdoors. The inability to express foraging behaviour is generally associated with a high occurrence of stereotypies, a sign of deep malaise in pigs.

Fig. 3.3. Rabbits reared in cages: they cannot express locomotor behaviour.

can be a source of stress and increase the frequency of disease, linked to the development of microorganisms. RESTING CONDITIONS. Livestock buildings are generally structured into areas for feeding, moving around and lying down. Specifc equipment, such as cubicles for cattle, are used to reduce social competition for access to the resting area. They must be suffciently adapted to allow the animal to stand up, lie down and carry out the movements necessary for these actions without injuring itself, or experiencing pain or fear. However, the increase in the size of the animals, associated with an improvement in zootechnical performance, is not always followed by an adaptation of the sleeping equipments. For example, if cubicles are too small, cows are forced to position themselves sideways and/or place their hindquarters in the alleyway, which is generally a source of injury (hoof ulcers and lameness) and dirt that can cause mastitis. Recommendations on the dimensions and management of the equipment, based on knowledge of the postures and movements of the animals when lying down and getting up, have been proposed to guarantee their lying comfort. FLOOR COVERING. Above all, fooring in livestock buildings must be slip-resistant to prevent falls, which can lead to injury. As with the layout of bedding, recommendations for fooring have been drawn up, based on knowledge of the characteristic movements and postures of the animals. While animal safety is the main criterion for determining the flooring, other behavioural

ACCESS TO FOOD AND WATER. In barns, the design of feed-access facilities must be optimized to reduce competition between animals and allow them adequate ingestion time. Feed fences and troughs with ledges, or automatic, individualized feed dispensers, make it possible to satisfy these conditions despite high social density. Unfortunately, however, on-farm visits still reveal the use of equipment that is ill-suited to the size of the animals and the under-equipment of feeding and/or watering systems, which can lead to a deterioration in animal welfare.

3.1.3 Improving the social environment All farm animals are social animals that live in groups. They have the ability to recognize each other individually and to develop stable and diversified social relationships, which take the form of dominance–subordination relationships (in which an individual has privileged access to a limited resource) and affinity relationships (for example, positive interactions such as mutual grooming, greater spatial proximity and synchronization of activities). These relationships help to channel latent aggression and facilitate social cohesion. The social structure of related wild animals is often based on stable groups of females accompanied by their young. Males either form bachelor groups or are solitary. Males and females live together during reproduction only (cattle, pigs, hens) or all year round (horses). Farming practices do not always meet the social needs of the animals, in terms of group stability or composition. In this case, adaptation difficulties and social tensions are frequently noted within the rearing groups, such as a high frequency of aggressive interactions associated with negative emotions and bodily injuries. In addition, there is an emotional contagion between animals in the same batch: the presence

102

Improving Animal Welfare

of stressed animals increases the level of ambient stress. These stress factors are exacerbated by changes in rearing systems: larger herds, frequent changes in social groups, more or less prolonged isolation, and more or less early breaks in the bond between young and their mothers. Group mixing Herds are frequently mixed in livestock farming, particularly for zootechnical reasons aimed at homogenizing weights and/or sexes for fattening animals (to facilitate feed management), or during the physiological stage for breeding females (to facilitate reproductive management or parturition). However, these changes lead to a breakdown in pre-established relationships and confrontations between unfamiliar animals, resulting in stress and an increase in agonistic interactions (Fig. 3.4), often leading to a reduction in performance. In piglets, for example, aggression in the post-weaning phase is more related to mixing with unfamiliar piglets than to their age or to separating them from their mothers. Similarly, mixing of batches of piglets by weight at the start of fattening leads to significant social stress, numerous agonistic interactions and greater weight heterogeneity between piglets.

In dairy production, the mixing of groups also leads to strong social competition in the days following mixing and a drop in milk production. Such rearrangements are less problematic when the animals already know each other or when they are young. In the case of bull calves, keeping young cattle reared together since birth in fattening batches generates fewer aggressive interactions than in batches where the young cattle are unfamiliar with each other. Furthermore, keeping animals of different weights together for the fattening phase is not detrimental to production (fattening time, growth efficiency). It is therefore advisable not to reallocate bull calves at the start of the fattening phase (around ten months), even if the animals coming from the farm are not uniform in weight. In pig farms it is becoming increasingly common to allow piglets from different litters to become familiar with each other by opening access between several maternity cages (Fig. 3.5). This makes it easier to create batches at weaning time. Generally speaking, maintaining stable social groups throughout the different rearing phases helps to reduce the stress caused by group changes, linked to the establishment of a new dominance–subordination hierarchy.

Fig. 3.4. Agonistic interactions between two bulls after a group reshuffle.

Improving the Physical and Social Environment for Farm Animals

103

Fig. 3.5. Early familiarization between piglets from two different litters, by opening separations, helps to improve their welfare in a barn, here on slatted floors.

Social separation Because of the highly social nature of farm animals, separation from their penmates is the primary stress factor, detectable through an increase in agitation, vocalizations and heart rate in isolated animals. In addition, the risk of accidents rises sharply when attempts are made to separate an individual from its group, the effects being more or less marked depending on the species, breed and age of the animals. If isolation is necessary for health reasons, it is advisable to set up the medical pen that the animal being treated can remain in visual and audible contact with fellow animals. Regulations have also evolved in recognition of the importance of sociality. While the first directive on the protection of calves (91/629) increased the minimum space available per individual, whether calves were housed in groups or in individual pens, the second directive (97/2) prohibits their rearing in individual pens after the age of eight weeks. For sows, Directive 91/630 prohibited tethering, and Directive 2011/88 now requires pregnant sows to be group-housed, at least between four weeks after service and seven days before farrowing. Weaning and separation from the dam During parturition and in the moments that follow, the female and her young develop strong bonds that will promote the survival of the young and

its physiological and behavioural development. However, in dairy farming, for technical and health reasons (limiting the transmission of pathogens), the young are often separated from their dam shortly after birth and are reared in groups of young of the same age. These rearing conditions do not allow the needs of young animals to be fully met, particularly their behavioural and emotional needs, and limit the development of their social skills when they reach adulthood. Being aware of these stress factors, more and more farmers now introduce sub-adult animals, or even, in dairy farming, raise the young with foster cows in order to offer a richer social environment and a more suitable diet. As for suckler herds, although the youngsters are kept with their dam for several months, weaning them off their dam’s feed is a source of stress for them and their dams. This is why, in the field, we are seeing the introduction of gradual weaning (temporary separation of increasing duration in the days preceding weaning) to accustom the animals and try to reduce the stress of the final separation. The overcrowding of animals on a farm encourages social tension, which can lead to discomfort, stress and injury, and therefore to ill-being and reduced productivity. Taking better account of the social characteristics of animals in the design of rearing systems can reduce these tensions and the negative consequences of social stress at a lower cost, while facilitating the integration of the animal into its rearing group.

104

Improving Animal Welfare

3.1.4

Enrichment as a means of improvement

We have seen that adjustments to housing conditions and the social environment aim to minimize negative emotional experiences and reduce the animals’ potential poor welfare. As for the objective of stimulating the animals’ positive emotions and cognitive functions to ensure their true welfare, this falls within the remit of enrichment strategies. Enrichment of the living environment can be social, physical or cognitive. Knowledge of the animals’ specific needs and expectations is essential if we are to respond appropriately. For example, enrichment of the living environment will not be the same for pigs, cattle, chickens or ducks.

the animals to express a wide range of their behavioural repertoire (walking, exploration, social interaction etc.) in line with their needs and including the experience of positive emotions: free-range rearing rather than tethered rearing, group rearing rather than individual housing (especially if it is small), access to an exercise area and ergonomic equipment. In pig farms keeping sows restrained in the farrowing pen and then releasing them from the piglet’s third day of life helps to improve the welfare of the sows particularly during the first 72 hours post partum. It also minimizes piglet mortality and promotes growth and social behaviour. Social enrichment

Physical enrichment Physical enrichment involves the space available, feeding equipment and facilities that enable

Hierarchies are established very quickly between pubescent animals. It is generally maintained by the subordinate animals, who actively avoid the

Examples of ergonomic exercise areas and equipment In livestock farming, the pens in which the animals are housed are often simple (rectangular shape and flat floor). They can be made more complex with vertical partitions that divide the space into zones with different functions, with a substrate such as litter and objects that encourage the expression of a wide range of their behavioural repertoire. Examples include platforms (Fig. 3.6) that allow goats to stand high up, rotating brushes that allow cattle, horses and goats to groom themselves, and solid walls that allow animals to be isolated if they so wish.These devices encourage calves, for example, to explore, hide and scratch; they reduce the frequency of aggressive interactions and increase the frequency of affinity-based interactions between animals.

Fig. 3.6. Setting up the physical environment for goats.

Improving the Physical and Social Environment for Farm Animals

dominant ones if they can, rather than by the dominant ones, who would seek out and attack the subordinates. Several options for social enrichment can be proposed. MAINTAINING STABLE SOCIAL GROUPS. As we previously described batches of animals are often mixed during rearing, generally for technical reasons. Maintaining stable social groups throughout the different phases of rearing reduces social tensions and avoids the stress caused by group changes, linked to animal handling and the many agonistic interactions that initiate dominance– subordination relationships. In addition in the presence of familiar companions, the animal reacts less to stressful events such as transport or a change of environment.

ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS TO ISOLATE THEMSELVES IF THEY WANT TO. A number of housing features (curtains, panels) can be suggested. Cows, for example, use them by standing behind them, out of sight of other cows, before and/or after calving or when they are ill.

RAISING YOUNG CATTLE IN GROUPS OR WITH THEIR DAM .

In dairy farms an alternative to separation from their dam is to raise calves in pairs

105

from an early age. This enables them to have social contact with pairs promotes their cognitive development and social skills, and reduces the animals’ reactivity to stressful events. Keeping calves with their dam at an early age (Fig. 3.7) is also an option and several systems can be proposed: continuous free contact (24 hours/day), suckling for one or two short periods during the day (generally just before milking, two hours/ day), free contact for half a day (12 hours/day), continuous use of a foster cow for three to four calves.

Cognitive or occupational enrichment Cognitive enrichment calls on the cognitive skills of animals, offering them the opportunity to solve problems by means of a reward, or to better predict and control certain aspects of the environment. This type of enrichment generates positive emotions in the animal, such as joy, and improves its welfare. It should be used in conjunction with physical and social enrichment. The aim is to enable the animal to anticipate a positive event, such as the distribution of food. Piglets can be trained to recognize their own sound (each piglet has its own signal) and then press a button to obtain its food. After several weeks of training, these animals show fewer stress

Fig. 3.7. Example of keeping dairy calves with cows to encourage a richer social environment.

106

Improving Animal Welfare

reactions to feeding and more positive emotions. There are also examples in cattle; heifers trained to press a button to open a door behind which there was a food reward tended to show more signs (particularly small jumps) of joy than control animals. Another option may be to satisfy the animal’s expectations, for example by giving it more food than it expects. Cognitive enrichment is not yet widely used on farms, but is developing. It is an interesting way of improving animal welfare. Summary Farm animals have needs and expectations that vary depending on the species, but also on the genetic potential, age and experience acquired by the individual. If these needs and expectations are not met, they can lead to discomfort; so improving the living conditions of farm animals means, first and foremost, ensuring that the housing and social environment best meet their needs and expectations. Farming practices (housing, management of social groups) can be modified to reduce the causes of stress. Physical, social and cognitive enrichment strategies are also effective in improving welfare. However, they cannot replace physical and social rearing conditions that are too far removed from the animal’s needs and expectations. These levers for action must therefore be seen as complementary. Enrichment should guide the design of innovative rearing practices that genuinely meet the needs and expectations of the animals and offer them a  better quality of life, without requiring major investment.

3.2 Improving Animal–human Interactions through Better Relational Practices With the collaboration of Xavier Boivin, Research Director, UMR Herbivores

3.2.1 The importance of good relations between animals and humans Improving the conditions in which animals are reared means not only taking account of their needs and expectations and respecting their social behaviour, in particular through the enrichment

measures discussed in the previous chapter, but also good relations with the people who keep them. The very principle of livestock farming involves a great many human interventions that affect the animals’ environment and living conditions. The animals’ welfare also depends on how they perceive these interventions or the mere presence of humans. The introduction of positive and respectful human–animal relationships is an essential way of reducing the stress caused to the animals by the various interventions, and, by extension, the negative impact on production. The energy expended by the animals on stress-related physiological reactions tends to be detrimental to growth, production (of milk and eggs), reproduction and disease control. Good practices such as these also help to improve the farmer’s work with the animals, by making it easier and safer to intervene. The human–animal relationship is defined as the bond established between two individuals who recognize each other. This relationship can serve as a basis for an animal’s relationships with other humans through a process of generalization of the relationship. This chapter refers more specifically to ruminants and pigs; firstly, because their rearing methods involve the presence or regular intervention of the farmer; and, secondly, because mutual recognition is facilitated by the relatively small social groups on the farm.

3.2.2 Human intervention in livestock farming Livestock farming practices have production and animal welfare implications. Farmers have to supply products from the animals they rear (milk, eggs, meat); they also have to keep their livestock in good health. To do this, they have to spend a lot of time with their animals – feeding them, monitoring them, caring for them, milking them, breeding them, moving them, etc. Depending on the farmer’s behaviour during these interventions, the animals’ perception of them and the emotions generated, these interventions will be more or less easy, and more or less a source of discomfort or welfare for both the animals and the farmer.

Improving Animal–human Interactions through Better Relational Practices

Contact between farmers and their animals takes place through both physical and non-physical interactions. Most physical interactions are with the hands, such as touching, stroking, tapping or hitting, or using an object, such as a stick to extend the hand. Long-distance interactions are generally carried out using voice, gestures and noises. On modern livestock farms, with the increase in group size and growing mechanization, the farmer is increasingly distanced from his animals if he does not make the effort to maintain proximity. As a result, contact becomes increasingly rare and is essentially limited to care and veterinary treatment, or moving the animals. Long-distance interactions are more frequent and occur during other phases of the rearing process, such as feed distribution, cleaning the hutches or monitoring the animals. Most interactions between farmers and their animals are therefore, at best, neutral, but more often than not are perceived as aversive, i.e. unpleasant and leading to the animals’ avoidance if they are limited to routine or care interventions. For veal calves, for example, interactions between the farmer and the calves have decreased since the animals were placed in groups after the age of eight weeks (Directive 97/2/EC). In large collective pens with an automatic milk dispenser, interactions, which are often frequent at the start of the batch to accompany the calves to the dispenser, diminish thereafter because the human is no longer present during drinking. Farmers are generally advised to visit the pens at least once a day to get the calves used to their presence. Today, the same question arises for dairy cows, with the installation of milking robots and other robots (for distribution, floor scraping etc.) and the resulting reduction in human contact. Mechanization, computerization and the use of sensors are all technological developments that risk physically distancing farmers from their animals, despite the opportunities for surveillance and signals that could alert them to a deterioration in animal welfare. 3.2.3 The human–animal relationship The process of domestication of animals by humans is based, in particular, on the ability of animals to accept, and even seek, proximity to humans. This leads to a reduction in the

107

animal’s fear and negative emotional responses to humans. Domesticated animals do indeed have less exaggerated reactions and a shorter flight distance than wild animals. However, millennia of domestication have not made animals spontaneously docile. An animal’s response to a human varies according to the latter’s behaviour during the interaction, but also according to the animal’s species, age and experience, particularly of previous interactions. Above all, it will vary according to the animal’s emotional state and the intensity of the threat it is likely to perceive. Numerous scientific studies have shown that, in many species, the farmer’s behaviour towards his animals can influence their reactions. For example, in the case of farmers who behave abruptly, such as hitting or shouting, the animals show fearful reactions such as avoidance or flight, whereas, on the other hand, gentle contact, such as regularly touching or scratching the animals, reduces avoidance and increases the animal’s tendency to interact. While most studies have focused on the fear reactions of animals in response to physical interactions, the influence of interactions at a distance should not be overlooked. Numerous studies on hens, for example, have examined the effect of visual contact with humans. Hens that have had regular visual contact, associated with calm movements by the farmer, have less pronounced avoidance behaviour than hens that have not had this visual contact. Conversely, the high speed of the farmer’s movements was positively correlated with the chickens’ fear of humans. The animals’ fear reactions influence the ease with which they can be handled, both during the rearing phase and when being transported to the slaughterhouse. For example, calves that have received gentle contact during the rearing phase require less effort to be loaded onto a truck and produce better-quality meat. Animals’ fear reactions to humans also trigger stress responses. For example, pigs that have received abrupt contact from their handler not only show avoidance behaviour when a human enters their pen but also a higher release of the stress hormone cortisol than do pigs that have not received abrupt contact. Fear responses can alter numerous criteria of animal productivity: growth, milk production, reproduction, or increase mortality. Finally, fear reactions can lead

108

Improving Animal Welfare

and detecting them is essential to the animal’s survival. Vision is the main sensory capacity used, but knowledge of the notable differences with human vision helps us to better understand animal reactions. For example, the dynamic visual acuity of animals is generally high, so it is important to avoid sudden movements, which can be perceived negatively. In addition, because of the lateral positioning of the eyes, the field of vision is generally larger and blind spots smaller in animals than in humans. For example, in chickens and pigs, the field of vision is greater than 300°, whereas in humans it is only 180°. However, their binocular vision is weaker: 30° in hens and 50° in pigs, compared with 120° in humans (Fig. 3.8). These characteristics enable animals to better detect potential predators but make them less able to judge distances. They will therefore be surprised if a human approaches noiselessly in their blind spot. The quality of the human–animal relationship will also determine what is known as the ‘flight distance’, i.e. the minimum distance below which the presence of a human causes the animal to react, often fleeing, sometimes attacking, particularly if it cannot flee. This distance varies according to the species, its genetic predisposition, the age of the animal, its experience, its emotional state and its environment. For example, dairy cattle, which are selected for milking and handled on a daily basis, usually have a shorter flight distance than suckler cattle, which are subject to less human intervention. A shorter flight distance often makes handling easier and causes the animals to be less

to lesions or lameness, particularly through falls during flight-or-fight movements, which they induce between animals that are excited or too close to each other. 3.2.4 Animals’ perception of human actions During human interventions, the mutual perceptions of man and animal come into play to determine the behaviour of one towards the other. These perceptions are based on the sensory universe of each species, i.e. sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste (see Chapter 1.4). These sensory universes may or may not overlap, sometimes leading to misinterpretations and inappropriate responses. It is therefore essential to take into account the animal’s point of view, which is, by nature, different from that of humans. The existence and intensity of fear depend on the animal’s interpretation of a situation – its suddenness, novelty, degree of predictability and control, etc. Even if it is not possible to perfectly anticipate the animal’s reaction, knowing its sensory and emotional world well helps to understand the situation as it perceives it and to adapt its behaviour accordingly. Phylogenetically, domestic animals are all prey (even predatory species), just like wild animals. They are therefore highly sensitive to sudden, rapid movements, intense stimuli (visual, auditory, olfactory) and the flight reactions of their fellow animals. All these factors are often associated with the risk of predation in the wild,

50° 30° 120° Monocular zone

Binocular zone

Monocular zone

Binocular zone

Binocular zone Monocular zone

Monocular zone

Blind zone

Blind zone

180°

30°

Monocular zone

Fig. 3.8. Comparative characteristics of vision in humans, chickens and pigs.

Monocular zone

Blind zone 30°

Improving Animal–human Interactions through Better Relational Practices

frightened. The right use of stand-off distance and the right angle of approach make it easy to direct the movement of animals without frightening them. However, over-familiarity with large animals, such as cattle, can make them more difficult to handle, as it is no longer possible to use the beneficial effect of the flight distance and they have to be handled differently, in particular using auxiliary tools to induce the desired movements (broom, flag etc.), or encouraging them through rewards, particularly food or social rewards. Other important sensory abilities in the human–animal relationship are taste, smell, hearing and touch. Here again, knowing how animals perceive their environment makes for better interactions. Taste can easily be used to compensate for unpleasant actions with food rewards. The sense of smell is particularly useful for communication between animals, particularly in the event of danger. Animals are sensitive to molecules emitted by a stressed animal and will adapt their behaviour accordingly, without the human having perceived these molecules. Limiting this chemical communication as much as possible by favouring conditions conducive to a climate of trust in herds or flocks is beneficial to animal handling. Tactile contact is frequently used in social behaviour between individuals, either during aggressive interactions or during positive ones on very specific areas of the body (licking, resting the head etc.). The tactile interactions initiated by humans (stocking, touching, brushing) are not without significance for the animal: in the case of a poor human–animal relationship, they can resemble contact with a predator or dominant, and lead to defensive behaviour. In the case of a good relationship, it may be interpreted positively by the animal, in the same way as interactions between conspecifics, such as licking, and have a calming effect (relaxation posture, lower heart rate etc.).

behaviour towards his animals if we can access a sample of animals that is representative of the farm. The identity, appearance and behaviour of the observers and/or handlers play a major role in the variation in behaviour observed in relation to humans. Numerous studies have shown that different farmed species (pigs, sheep, cattle, horses, poultry etc.) are capable of discriminating between two human individuals and adapting their response. But they are also capable of generalizing their fear reactions to their breeder to all humans. The response to the unknown human is therefore strongly influenced by previous treatments given by familiar humans. This enables an outside assessor to obtain relevant information about the human–animal relationship on the farm. The development of evaluation protocols and the validity of the measures taken depend enormously on the rigour with which the tests are carried out and on the training of the observers, who must be aware of the possible sources of bias in order to limit them as much as possible. Assessments carried out by a trained external person, therefore, appear to be more appropriate for assessing the relationship between animals and humans in general than an assessment involving the farmer himself, who would also feel that he was being observed. Three types of test have been identified in the scientific literature:

•

3.2.5 Assessing the human–animal relationship In applied ethology, standardized, quantitative observations of animal reactions to humans (frequency, duration etc.) are used as a basis for evaluation: assessment of an animal’s behaviour, animal welfare on the farm, or the farmer’s

109

•

tests of reaction to a passive human (i.e. approach test), in which the distance and latency of the animal are assessed, as well as the contact time with the animal. The passive human is considered to be ‘standard’ because its behaviour cannot, in theory, affect the animal’s reactions. Developed with pigs and since used in a number of species, this test has demonstrated its ability to distinguish between the responses of animals with a positive or negative history of contact with humans. A pig interacts easily with a passive experimenter, but less and less so if it learns in the course of its life that humans are aversive; tests in which the human is in motion or points his hand at the animals. These tests are used to assess the animal’s fight distance and the number of animals that the

110

•

Improving Animal Welfare

can be standardized by training, or that it has a negligible effect on the test result, which is more a refection of the animal factor.

person manages to touch. The human’s behaviour must be kept simple (walking at a regular pace, touching the animal on the back etc.) to make it easy to standardize and to distinguish the animal’s response as accurately as possible without bias from other factors. These tests are included in multicriteria animal welfare assessment protocols such as Welfare Quality®. This protocol has shown that the distance at which dairy cows can be approached in loose housing or at the feeding rack (Fig. 3.9) can be related to the behaviour of farmers during milking. It has also shown that the average flight distance of animals on a farm is statistically correlated with the proportion of positive contact (petting, calm speech etc.) compared with negative contact (hitting, shouting etc.) with humans. Identical relationships are found in veal calf, pig and broiler farming; tests to assess reactions to handling when moving, capturing or restraining animals. Unlike the two previous types of test, where the experimenter’s behaviour can be reproduced almost identically, moving the animal forces the human and the animal to take account of each other’s reactions. Nevertheless, it is considered that the manipulative effect on the animal’s reaction

2 me

tres a

way

from

To sum up it appears that the animals’ reactions during the tests reflect their perception of humans, and therefore the quality of the relationship between them. 3.2.6 Improving the human–animal relationship The influence of genetics on this relationship

the a

A significant genetic component has been shown in the reactions of animals to humans, a component that is relatively easy to demonstrate in farm animals given the often large number of offspring per breeding male. In domestic ruminants, dairy breeds show a lower flight distance than meat breeds, even when reared in the same conditions. In addition, genetic selection programmes based on greater animal docility have been set up in many sectors. Finally, at farm level, farmers make an individual selection; they choose to keep and breed certain animals on the basis of their behaviour, and do not keep animals with exacerbated fear reactions.

nima

l

Fig. 3.9. Avoidance distance at the feeding rack test used to assess the human–animal relationship on dairy farms using the Welfare Quality® method. The assessor stands 2 m in front of a cow, walks towards the cow with his arm in front, and assesses the distance at which the animal withdraws.

Improving Animal–human Interactions through Better Relational Practices

The construction of the human–animal relationship and the notion of a sentient period

30

The interactions between the animal and the person who looks after it, feeds it, monitors it, handles it and uses it for production purposes follow one another from birth and throughout the animal’s life. A major stage in the construction of the human–animal relationship is the notion of experience, a temporal dimension during which the animal acquires and memorizes elements of knowledge as it interacts with humans. This experience will shape the animal’s perception of the farmer and then, by generalization, of other humans (caretaker, vet, inseminator etc.). It will enable the animal to predict the outcome of subsequent interactions with humans and to develop adaptation strategies that may prove detrimental to its handling and welfare. Fearful reactions often stem from a lack of habituation to humans or from a fear learnt during negative interventions by humans in the animal’s presence (blows, cries, painful interventions, but also agitated movements, running, frightening noises etc.). Conversely, certain types of human contact (feeding, tactile contact, gentle voices, calm movements etc.) can be perceived positively by animals (Fig. 3.10). Thus, based on the classic theories of learning (positive/negative reinforcement), many studies suggest that the balance between positive and negative contacts must be largely in favour of positive ones in order to build a positive relationship with the animal, i.e. one in which the presence of humans and handling are not aversive for the animal, and may even constitute a source of enrichment or appeasement. Furthermore, animals go through periods of intense reorganization in their lives, during which they are more easily and permanently destabilized by deprivation or environmental aggression (Fig. 3.11). These sentient periods depend on the species and the social environment, and, depending on the case, they tend to occur at birth, at weaning or in young age. In cattle, for example, three sentient periods have been identified: young age weaning and calving. For the majority of domestic animals, young age is a key period for establishing social contacts between conspecifics, but also between the animal and the farmer, with contacts that mark the

20

111

Time(s)

25

15 10 5 0

Phase 3 Phase 1 Close to human

Fig. 3.10. Average time (in seconds) spent close to humans for piglets subjected to minimal human contact (light-green figure) or repeated soft tactile contact (dark-green figure) during a human presence response test (after Tallet et al., 2014). Three successive phases are organized. During phases 1 and 3, the human is present. During phase 2, the animal is alone. During phases 1 and 3, piglets, having had a positive experience with the human (soft tactile contact), spend more time close to the human than piglets having had a neutral experience. During phase 3, the piglets, whatever their experience, spent more time close to the human than during phase 1.

animal for its future life more quickly, more durably and more effectively. For example, in weanlings early tactile contact of a positive nature facilitates contact, with animals approaching humans faster and for longer. However, the animal’s existing relationships with its social world can interact strongly with the construction of human–animal relationships. For example, in cattle farms, studies show the importance of the dam’s presence in building relationships with humans. Animals are often more fearful when reared with their dam than when artificially suckled. These differences can be explained not only by the difference in human–animal contact depending on the rearing method, but also by the fact that the young animal is strongly focused on the presence of the dam and her behaviour towards the human partner. The body of work on the effects of human intervention during a sentient period nevertheless suggests that habituation to humans during this period leads to the creation of a relationship of trust that promotes bonds of affinity.

112

Improving Animal Welfare

Human approach latency (seconds) No contact Contacts with humans: bucket feeding and caresses distributed by human 1 to 4 days of life

300 Fear reduction 200

100

6 to 9 days of life 11 to 14 days of life

0

Witness

1–4

6–9

11–14

Age at contact (days) Fig. 3.11. Latency of approach to a human by a 20-day-old calf (after Krohn et al., 2001). Calves with positive contact with humans between one and four days of age approach humans more readily than calves with positive contact later in life.

The aim of improving interpersonal practices is therefore to ensure a rapid, effective and lasting relationship that is beneficial for both human and animal. Training and improving human behaviour The behaviour of the farmer has a major influence on the behaviour of the animals. It is therefore essential to train farmers and others involved in animal husbandry in good practice and good behaviour. However, this is not always enough. People’s behaviour towards animals is largely influenced by their personality and working habits, their organization and working environment, their social environment, but also by their degree of job satisfaction and their aspirations between professional and personal life. Psychologists show that this behaviour depends particularly on the effect that people imagine their own behaviour to have on that of animals. If these different parameters are not taken into account, the farmer’s behaviour cannot be modified over the long term, and the human–animal relationship will be more an experience than a construct. Psychologists study the favourable or unfavourable representations that humans have of an entity, which may be an object, an animal or a person. These representations predispose people to the action they will take towards the entity in question. They have been the subject of a great deal of work in the field of human–animal relations

and in the study of human behaviour towards animals. They can be modified by training. Following the theory of reasoned action, psychologists generally recognize three components to a representation: the cognitive component, which refers to the beliefs associated with the entity; the affective component, which represents the emotional response associated with the entity; and the behavioural component, which indicates the tendency to behave in a characteristic way towards the entity. The implementation of a behaviour then takes place in four stages. In the first stage, the individual forms his or her convictions based on a certain number of parameters, such as age, gender and personality. In the second stage, beliefs and their evaluation determine the individual’s representation of the behaviour to adopt towards the animal. In the third stage, the individual’s subjective norms (social, cultural environment etc.) will influence the representations that the individual has constructed regarding the behaviour to adopt towards the animal. Finally, the intention to act actually leads to the desired behaviour. The way farmers perceive their animals depends on a number of parameters specific to them. For example, the belief that animals are sentient beings that need to be handled gently will have a positive influence on their behaviour towards them. But the construction of representations is also influenced by external factors. For example, farmers’ perceptions depend on the type

Improving Animal–human Interactions through Better Relational Practices

and number of animals they keep, and the amount of work involved in looking after them. In particular, it has been shown that having animals born on the farm seems to favour positive representations. Finally, the social environment and the influence of family and friends can also influence a farmer towards more or less positive or negative representations of animals. The relationship between representation and behaviour offers a particularly interesting idea: the representation of a behaviour to adopt in relation to the animal can be influenced in return by observation of the result of that same behaviour. In training, farmers can be encouraged to change their representations thanks to a better understanding of the effect of their behaviour on the animal and its production. This also motivates them to observe the effect of changes in their behaviour on that of the animal, in a virtuous circle. This works particularly in the case of routine daily activities, such as milking, but also at the abattoir. Studies suggest that after this type of training, dairy or pig farmers have more favourable attitudes towards their animals when they have close, regular physical contact in good conditions, than untrained farmers. Similarly, a recent study shows that trained farmers are more resistant to fatigue or difficult working conditions and show less aversive behaviour towards their animals than untrained farmers. For humans interacting with animals, training can therefore encourage positive representations by changing the way animals are seen as ‘sentient beings’ and by highlighting the effectiveness of positive behaviour towards animals. However, these changes in perceptions of animals and working with them often require the farmer to rethink the way in which his work is conceived and organized. They are also subject to the gaze of others, who may judge them negatively. If it is to be effective and lead to the development of positive attitudes, such training must take account of the farmer’s workload, and, if possible, involve the farmer’s social environment. Organizing work to improve relational practices The organization of the farmer’s work on a daily basis or according to the life cycle of the animals, as well as the layout of the environment to take better account of their sensory perception, also

113

strongly condition this human–animal relationship and the implementation of relational practices. This includes the selection of animals at an early stage, the construction of buildings to facilitate the work and movement of people and animals, the time to spend with the animals, and the type of interaction to be developed when observing the animals. These include paying attention to understanding the animal’s response to interventions, warning the animal of our presence and of the technical acts that are going to be carried out, sending positive signals to the animal (slow gestures, measured words, appropriate angle of approach, limiting situations of novelty, suddenness, frustration or pain associated with the presence or interventions of humans) and enriching its living environment. Aversive situations can be reduced by getting the animals used to a calmer environment, in the presence of a familiar human, or by using food rewards. These choices are all the more true in today’s context of limited time, mechanization and automation. Summary Farm animals may show intense reactions of flight or even attack towards humans, or, on the contrary, seek contact or even calm down in their presence. The human–animal relationship is built by taking into account the emotional perception of each other during interactions. The sum interactions builds the perception of the other, and the animal acquires experience that will help it to predict the outcome of subsequent interactions. Finally, familiarization with humans during a sentient period reinforces the predictability of subsequent interactions. The accumulation of positive emotions and experiences contributes to the animal’s welfare. It helps to build a relationship of trust between animal and human. The levers for improving this relationship lie with the farmers themselves, through their choices and the development of certain relational practices determined by this objective. The aim is to reduce stressful situations in favour of positive contact, and to optimize animal handling in order to ensure the welfare of the animals, as well as the safety and professional and personal satisfaction of the farmer. Farmers have some leeway as to the role they should play in their relationship with their animals, given the growing use of monitoring tools: this should ensure that the human–animal relationship is not degraded, or that it is improved.

114

Improving Animal Welfare

3.3

Integrated Health Management

3.3.1 What is integrated management? Health is inseparable from welfare. The absence of pain, injury and illness is one of its components (Chapter 1.5). The World Health Organization also defines health as ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social welfare and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’. As we can see, health and welfare are part of a global concept that takes our approach to health from simple prophylaxis to maintaining the health and welfare of animals. Disease prevention plays a major role. Every day, living beings are exposed to risks or situations that can endanger their physical integrity and health. Farm animals are no exception. So how can their health be taken into account and managed when a problem arises, and above all in a preventive way to ensure their welfare? This chapter begins by outlining the main types of health risk in livestock farming and then looks at how to treat and prevent them using a comprehensive, integrated approach, rather than focusing solely on one strategy (drugs or feed, for example). The management of lameness in cattle will be used as an example.

transactions (imported diseases) or transmission by vectors (such as mosquitoes, responsible for the spread of the bluetongue epidemic in 2007–2008). These diseases are more diffcult to prevent, especially on very open farms. Strict biosecurity rules are needed to protect animals from the risk of infection, as is syndromic surveillance2 to rapidly detect the slightest change in the situation. It is also clear that, without knowing which disease to combat, control methods need to be comprehensive. All these diseases, whether in the first or second category, can present clinical forms, i.e. detectable, but also subclinical forms, with a less visible expression (frustrated signs, difficult to detect). In these cases, the impact on production characteristics such as growth or milk production is almost exclusively slight and discreet on a day-to-day basis. Nonetheless, they are a potential threat to animal welfare and represent an economic loss for the farmer in terms of reduced production, or even culling of the animals. These subclinical forms concern production diseases in particular and IoT cal help to detect them (see Chapter 2.7).

3.3.3 The six pillars of integrated health management 3.3.2

Health risks in livestock farming

Broadly speaking, these risks fall into two main categories:

•

•

standard or frequent health risks. These correspond to everyday illnesses, such as infectious diseases of bacterial, viral or parasitic origin (pneumonia, intramammary infections, diarrhoea), or diseases of metabolic origin. A number of these are also known as ‘production’ diseases because they are closely linked to current production systems. These include lameness (often due to housing conditions) and intramammary infections in animals whose milk is milked. Most often multifactorial, these production diseases are not always of infectious origin. Farming practices play a major role in their occurrence and frequency; less traditional diseases, known as ‘emerging’ diseases. These are the result of animal

You might think that an infectious disease could be managed by administering anti-infectives alone, or that a metabolic disease would rely exclusively on correcting the diet. This is not the case. As we saw earlier, many of the diseases affecting animals are multifactorial. They require consideration to be given not only to the triggering factor (the infectious agent, for example), but also to the favouring or aggravating factors, to enable a lasting cure and, above all, prevention. This means applying integrated management, i.e. integrating all the components of the problem from the outset. One way of looking at all the factors that can influence the health of animals, and thus encourage the onset of disorders, is based on six main pillars (Fig. 3.12): 1. The farmer himself, who has his own objectives in his breeding and production system.

Integrated Health Management

115

Farmer Objectives, practices, motivations, training, workforce Accommodation • Hygiene • Comfort • Ventilation...

Animal • Robustness • Race, genetics • Production level...

Food • Production • Quality • Nutrition-health...

The six main pillars

Pathogens • Purchase control • Treatment, hygiene...

Farm management • Biosecurity • Disease detection/ management • Ventilation...

Fig. 3.12. The six main pillars of integrated management.

These objectives are likely to create situations that are more or less conducive to the occurrence of disorders. For example, we know that a high level of milk production, even if combined with excellent health, carries a high risk of many diseases. Various parameters need to be taken into account: the farmer’s practices in contact with the animals, such as care and handling, husbandry practices in the building, the farmer’s motivation and level of training, and the amount of labour available to carry out tasks such as monitoring the animals or maintaining the building. A measure that is suitable for one farmer is not necessarily suitable for all. 2. The animal, through its own resistance to disease, which may be a consequence of its breed and/or genetic characteristics, predisposing it to certain diseases or, on the contrary, protecting it to a greater or lesser extent. The animal’s character, its docility for example, or its level of production are also important criteria to take into account when drawing up a therapeutic plan, for example. 3. Housing and, more generally, the environment in which the animals and the farmer live. The characteristics of this environment can infuence the level of hygiene, comfort, ventilation etc., all risk factors in the development of numerous diseases. 4. Animal feed. This obviously has an impact on production capacity and product quality, but

numerous studies have also shown the infuence of nutrition on health, in both humans and animals. It is often said that nutrition is the frst line of medicine and prevention. 5. Farm management. This may involve biosecurity practices (to prevent the introduction of pathogens into a farm, for example, or to prevent the transmission of infections within the farm between animals), but also the farmer’s preventive practices, such as vaccination, and the methods he uses to detect and manage sick animals. 6. Mainly for diseases of infectious origin, the need to consider the possibilities for action on the pathogens themselves. First of all, all measures must be taken to prevent their introduction into the farm. In the case of animal transactions in particular, this can involve what are known as ‘control techniques on purchase’, i.e. placing animals in quarantine or carrying out tests to diagnose the possible carriage of diseases. It also involves the use of specific vaccinations and the treatment of sick animals. To deal with a given disorder, or to prevent all possible disorders, management plans must be put in place that take all these pillars into account. Because of particular constraints or the specific nature of a given disease, some pillars may not be addressed in the end, but they will at least have been considered.

116

Improving Animal Welfare

An example of integrated management: lameness in cattle The example chosen to illustrate this principle of integrated animal health management is that of lameness in cattle, a source of pain for the animals and a major concern for today’s farmers. 1. With regard to the ‘livestock farmer’ pillar, action can be taken with: • dedicated training for farmers, to raise awareness of the problem, encourage earlier detection through regular examination of the animal’s feet, and enabling appropriate treatment to be given; • better information for farmer on treatments appropriate to the diseases from which the animal may suffer; and • advice on the equipment needed to contain the animals safely and effectively, and on monitoring tools. For example, by detecting changes in activity, activimeters can be used to diagnose a lameness-type infection at an earlier stage. 2. With regard to the ‘animal’ pillar, action can be taken with: • taking into account genetic traits, such as the quality of the foot, hoof or skin, to help the animal resist aggression that could lead to foot disease or affect the hoof horn; and • the equally important choice of animals and breeds suited to the system the farmer wants to set up. 3. With regard to the ‘housing’ pillar, we can: • improve animal comfort with good-sized, comfortable cubicles to avoid trauma and reduce the risk of lameness; • favour dry housing (dampness being a major risk factor) with no traumatic areas. For example, the access path to the pasture is sometimes an area where droppings, damp and stones accumulate; it must therefore be laid out in such a way as to limit the risk of lameness; and • have a sick bay and means of restraint for caring for the animals’ feet. 4. With regard to the ‘food’ pillar, we can: • avoid underweight animals, as the thinner they are, the greater their risk of lameness (fatty structures designed to absorb shocks in the hoof are less effective in animals that are too thin);

Fig. 3.13. Inadequately cleaned soil is a major risk factor for lameness in cattle. Continued

Integrated Health Management

117

Continued. • set up a ration that avoids metabolic disorders (such as hypocalcaemia or acetonaemia), which are known to have a negative impact on the cattle’s immunity and can therefore encourage the onset of lameness; and • check that the animals are getting the vitamins and minerals they need to maintain the quality of skin and hooves. 5. With regard to the ‘livestock management’ pillar, action can be taken on: • husbandry practices relating to foot care, with, for example, the services of a chiropodist and very regular trimming; • the general hygiene of the building by regular cleaning (removal of soiled bedding) to ensure that the cattle’s feet are in a clean, dry environment rather than a dirty, damp one (Fig. 3.13); and • regular observation of the animals on a daily basis to detect lame animals as early as possible. 6. With regard to the ‘pathogens’ pillar, we can: • implement biosecurity practices such as checking the feet of all animals before introducing them, to see if they are suffering from infectious diseases that could be transmitted to other animals; • take charge of a lame animal as early as possible, and administer appropriate treatment; • install a footbath so that the animals can be regularly bathed in disinfectant; and • ensure that animals have a solid immunity (by providing them with feed supplements, for example). In other species, such as sheep, vaccination can be used to protect animals from foot rot, a condition that causes severe lameness. Integrated management of lameness therefore requires an overall vision that uses potential levers at the level of the farmer, the animal, housing, husbandry, feed and pathogens, and not through the prism of a single measure (Fig. 3.14). Farmer Training in detection and treatment, activity monitors Animal • Genetic selection resistant animals • Breed adapted to the farming system

Integrated lameness management

Food • Avoid weight loss • Ensure immunity and protection of the skin Pathogens • Control at introduction • Early treatment, footbath

Accommodation • Comfort • Non-traumatic equipment

Livestock management • Regular pedicure/trimming • Cleaning • Regular observation of animals

Fig. 3.14. Example of integrated health management: application to lameness in dairy cattle.

This integrated management goes even further than just herds and animals via the concept of ‘one health’. Developed a few years ago, this concept expresses the interdependence between the health of humans, animals and the environment. Many pathogens are carried by both humans and animals and can be transmitted from one to the other.

By aiming for better control of animal health, we can improve human health and protect the environment. To better protect public health, prevention and control policies need to be put in place, particularly for infectious diseases. It is a win-win approach, which, by improving the health of the animals, will very probably

118

Improving Animal Welfare

improve the health of people, not least the farmers. What is more, farmers will see their daily stress levels reduced and their working conditions improved (see the concept of ‘one welfare’ in this part). Preventing the onset of diseases, such as lameness, also reduces the need for curative treatments and can help to reduce the use of antibiotics and combat antibiotic resistance. Summary When it comes to health management, as with everything else, there is no miracle product that can prevent or cure ailments, especially as many farm animal diseases are multifactorial. It is by taking into account all the levers that can be mobilized that we can achieve reasoned, sustainable management of animal health.

3.4

Better Management of Animal Pain

The absence of pain is one of the cornerstones of animal welfare. In this chapter, we will look first at the definition of pain, the diversity of its sources in livestock farming, and at how to detect it in farm animals. Finally, we consider an overall framework for thinking about pain management.

3.4.1

Pain

Pain is ‘an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with or resembling that associated with actual or potential tissue damage’. Pain is universal; it can be felt by everyone. In the short term, it is beneficial because it prevents the individual from injuring themselves and contributes, among other things, to spatial learning in young people. In humans, acute pain is defined as pain lasting less than three months and directly linked to the presence of an injury or tissue damage, such as a cut, burn or fracture. If the pain persists even though the tissue has normally healed, it is known as chronic pain. Chronic pain has no protective role for the body and, depending on its severity, can be disabling. It is particularly difficult to treat. Pain should not be confused with stress or discomfort.

3.4.2 The diversity of sources of pain in livestock farming There are two types of pain in livestock farming. The first concerns sources of pain that could be called ‘predictable’ because they are linked to the implementation of practices and procedures that are known to be painful and for which we know when and how they should be carried out. These include certain animal husbandry practices (Fig. 3.15) such as foot trimming, or zootechnical practices such as castration in pigs, carried out on piglets to avoid impregnating the meat with male hormones, which would give it an unpleasant smell when cooked3. Dehorning cattle is another example. It avoids injuries between fellow animals as well as injuries to professionals when handling the animals. Another example is the debeaking of poultry, which consists of shortening the end of the beak to prevent injuries from pecking between animals. These practices, which were aimed at maximizing production potential in a given system, are now referred to as ‘mutilations’, as there are often more humane alternatives. Veterinary interventions, such as surgery, and medical procedures (punctures, sampling) are also predictable sources of pain. They may be diagnostic (taking blood or ruminal fluid samples to diagnose acidosis in cattle, or bronchoalveolar samples to determine the cause of respiratory problems) or therapeutic, such as caesarean sections. Although the ultimate aim of these procedures is to relieve or treat the animal, they are nonetheless painful and sometimes invasive. When faced with such foreseeable pain, farmers and vets need to ask themselves the following questions: Are these practices still justified? Are they still appropriate?, and if the practice is justified and generates pain, How can the animal’s pain be prevented and relieved? The second type of pain is ‘spontaneous, unpredictable’. This is associated with illnesses that are usually unpredictable, with diseases, with physiological events such as parturition, or with conflicts between fellow animals. Conditions such as lameness cause pain and represent a major threat to the animal’s welfare. In the face of such unpredictable spontaneous pain, simple, robust indicators must be used to identify the pain early and, above all,

Better Management of Animal Pain

Local pain Surgical intervention

119

Systemic pain Castration Tail docking

Pneumonia

Blood test

Injury

Parturition

Potential origins of pain

Physiology

Diseases

Breeding practices

Veterinary interventions

Blood test, injection

Equipment

Conspecifics (conflicts)

Fig. 3.15. Different sources of pain in livestock farming (diseases, husbandry practices, veterinary interventions etc.). The pain caused may be local or systemic (generalized).

easily and quickly. The most appropriate analgesic strategy should then be implemented as soon as possible.

3.4.3 How can pain be detected in farm animals? In order to identify pain in farm animals at an early stage, it is important to use the available indicators, which can be divided into three categories. The first category includes physiological indicators, such as cortisol (a hormone secreted and released by the adrenal gland), heart rate, respiratory rate and temperature. However, they are not very specific, as they can be modified by situations other than painful conditions. In fact, they are markers of stress rather than pain. For example, when piglets or cattle are simply handled without painful intervention, cortisol levels rise. What is more, some of these indicators (blood, saliva or milk levels) are difficult to apply on a large scale, particularly on the farm, because the results are not easy to obtain quickly. They are therefore unsuitable for routine use but are widely used in research. The second category corresponds to zootechnical indicators, such as animal intake levels, production performance (milk or egg production,

growth) and reproduction. There are two problems with their day-to-day use: firstly, they are not necessarily available, or the data are not always easily accessible on the farm at the time when we want to assess the animal’s pain, as is the case for the level of ingestion. Secondly, these criteria are considered to be too late (for example, the impact on milk production) because they are more a consequence of the painful phenomenon and do not allow for early-enough detection. Finally, they are not very specific, because a drop in production, reproduction or ingestion can be caused by events other than pain. The third category relates to animal behaviour. Behavioural indicators may consist of observable signs on the animal itself but may also concern the way it interacts with its physical and social environment. In all cases, the aim is for the farmer or vet to identify any changes in the animal’s normal behaviour. Behaviours suggestive of pain observed at the individual level can be grouped into six categories: Locomotor activity. Animals change their locomotor activity. For example, after dehorning or castration, calves move around more (see box on dehorning calves). In the case of mastitis, cows stand for longer periods. Postures. The animals adopt postures that limit stimulation of the areas that cause pain.

120

Improving Animal Welfare

These changes in posture involve the limbs, tail, back and carriage of the head. For example, in the case of foot lesion, the animal changes its stance when walking or standing (trampling). It changes its lying or standing posture, extending or retracting a limb, lying on one side rather than the other, and so on. When in pain, cattle press their tails harder, carry their necks low and arch their backs. Vocalizations. Some individuals may emit vocalizations when a painful stimulus is applied (e.g. during marking, dehorning or tail docking), but this is not always the case. Behaviour directed towards the painful area. Animals lick or scratch the painful area. For example, after castration, calves lick their scrotum and move their tails more, while piglets rub their hindquarters. After dehorning, calves rub their heads and shake their ears or heads. Facial expressions. Variations in facial expression during pain were first studied in mice and rats, then in horses, sheep, cattle and pigs. In all these studies, close observation of the eyes, muzzle, cheek, lips and whiskers (if present) is used to characterize the level of pain felt: when in pain, the animals close their eyes, pucker their lips, clench their teeth, curl or tighten their nostrils, and point their ears backwards and downwards (Fig. 3.16). Defence responses during or after the painful act. The animal struggles, tries to escape,

kicks, etc. In the event of pain, the animal may also modify the way it interacts with its physical environment: visible signs in its feeding activity, its use of a support (post, brush) to groom itself, or even, in juveniles, the space to carry out sequences of locomotor play. Attention to the environment. Cattle or sheep in pain are often less attentive to environmental stimuli. Feeding activity. In certain cases of pain, animals reduce their feeding activity. For example, after castration, calves ruminate less. In the case of mastitis, cows feed less and ruminate less. However, no change in feeding activity has been observed after dehorning. It would therefore seem that the impact on this activity depends on the nature, intensity and duration of the pain induced. Grooming against elements of the physical environment. The effect of pain on grooming behaviour against a support has only been described for painful disease models. Compared with healthy cows, cows with metritis (uterine infection) or lameness reduced their brush use activity when the brush was placed away from the feeding table. Similarly, cows with mastitis scratch less against environmental elements than healthy cows. Locomotor play. In the event of pain, young animals reduce their locomotor play activity, which consists of running, jumping or performing rotational body movements. However,

White circle : closed/lowered eyelids Red circle : wrinkled nose Green circle : lowered/frown brow Blue circle : tense upper lip Yellow circle : ears back

Fig. 3.16. Facial expressions suggestive of pain in humans, cows and horses.

Better Management of Animal Pain

the results differ depending on the cause of the pain and the species. Calves play less after being dehorned, lambs play less after castration (this effect was not observed in week-old calves) and piglets play less with other animals after being castrated and tail-docked. Finally, in the event of pain, animals can also change the way they interact with their social environment. The following indicators can be used: Inter-individual distance, synchronization of activities. After castration without analgesia, piglets isolate themselves from their congeners and synchronize their activities less with them. Cows suffering from painful diseases (mastitis, metritis, pneumonia) seem to avoid eye contact with their congeners. Affiliative and agonistic social interactions. Cows in pain or before the onset of symptoms of a pain-inducing disease (in the case of inflammatory diseases) engage in fewer agonistic interactions and, in some cases, more affiliative interactions. For example, lame cows, cows with mastitis or cows diagnosed the following week with ketosis (a common metabolic disease in cows linked to an accumulation of ketone bodies in the blood) or metritis are less

121

aggressive around the automatic concentrate dispenser than healthy cows. Social play. Social play involves two or more individuals responding to each other’s actions, such as head butting, chasing, kicking, overlapping, and so on. After castration without analgesia, piglets play less with a social partner. In calves, three hours after dehorning with a hot iron, those that had received an anaesthetic and an analgesic and those that had not been dehorned played more with a social partner than calves that had been dehorned without an anaesthetic or analgesic. Human–animal interaction. In the event of pain, animals can be more reactive to the presence of humans. This is the case with cows suffering from mastitis: in the milking parlour, for example, they trample more. These postures and behavioural changes appear to be specific to the pain felt by the animal. They are therefore the best indicators for detecting pain, and the farmer is the number-one sentinel. A few examples of pain assessment grids are beginning to become available. Many are based on facial expressions. Some include indicators at the individual level, such as postures, or the way in which the individual interacts with his or her

A pain grid for cattle This grid was developed by a Danish research team to detect the presence of acute or chronic pain in dairy cows under rearing conditions. Fifteen behavioural indicators of pain were evaluated on 43 cows by observing their behaviour at a distance, when approaching and when moving. Each indicator comprised two to three levels, determined by expert opinion; a score of 0 indicating normal behaviour (assumed to be associated with the absence of pain); and a final score was determined by adding together the scores for each indicator. To determine the specific behavioural changes associated with pain, the researchers compared the final score awarded to animals with and without pain-related disorders detected during clinical examination and checked whether the score awarded varied significantly after the administration of an analgesic. Of the 15 indicators initially assessed, six were excluded because they had never been observed (aimless chewing, bruxism, complaints, trembling, tenesmus (constant feeling of the need to urinate), sensation of kicking in the abdomen) and one was deemed difficult to interpret by the observers (hair erection). Two indicators proved not to be very discriminating in differentiating between painful and non-painful cows (nasal discharge and visibility of the sclera, or ‘white of the eye’). The score awarded on the basis of the six indicators selected fell significantly for animals with a condition considered painful and treated with the analgesic, whereas it did not fall significantly for animals without a painful condition or for those treated with a placebo. The final grid therefore includes six indicators, scored between 0 and 2, to which a seventh indicator has subsequently been added, which is a lameness score based on observation of locomotion. The authors of the grid considered that a total score of more than 3/10 (without including the lameness score) or more than 5/12 (including the lameness score) was suggestive of pain and required an in-depth clinical examination to verify the presence of a potentially painful condition.

122

Improving Animal Welfare

social environment. For the moment, social indicators are rarely taken into account. For each indicator (ear postures, eye opening etc.), these grids generally propose several modalities (closed Indicator/note

eye, semi-open eye, open eye), ranging from ‘normal’ (absence of pain) to highly modified behavioural expressions suggesting more intense pain. An example is shown in Fig. 3.17.

0

1

Active and attentive

Not attentive

Attention to external stimuli

2

(Not applicable)

Head held high

Head lower than the withers

Very low head

Both ears forward and actively moving

Two ears back

Two floppy ears (‘lamb’s attitude’)

Attentive or neutral

Tense expression

Head position

Ear position

Facial expression (Not applicable)

Response to the approach

Looking at the observer, head raised, ears forward, or busy with an activity (grooming, ruminating)

Looks at the observer, ears forward, stands up when approached Can look at the observer or not, head down, ears forward, and can stand up slowly

Straight back

Slightly arched back

Straight back

Position of the back line

Fig. 3.17. Grid of the main postural and behavioural indicators: example in cattle. (Adapted from Gleerup et al., 2015)

Better Management of Animal Pain

3.4.4

Pain management: the 3S principle, analogous to the 3R rule

Even if practical solutions have to be considered on a case-by-case basis and in line with the specific conditions of each animal production sector, it is not unrealistic to think that a more global approach would make it possible to propose generic solutions aimed at avoiding or limiting pain in farm animals. These solutions could be beneficial to the quality of production, as well as to the working conditions of the personnel involved. In 1959, William Russell and Rex Burch published a seminal text on the ethical treatment of laboratory animals. In it, they proposed an approach based on replacing animals in research, reducing the number of animals used and refining experiments, principles known as the ‘3R’ rule. A similar approach was proposed to improve pain management in farm animals in the collective scientific assessment of animal pain conducted by the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment (INRAE) in 20094. This approach is based on the 3S rule: eliminate, substitute, relieve. The first step is to implement solutions aimed at eliminating certain farming practices that cause pain. If it is not possible to do without the practice in question, other, less painful practices should be substituted. Finally, solutions aimed at relieving the pain should be used

123

when it cannot be avoided. A possible translation of the 3Ss is ‘suppress, substitute and soothe’. The high societal expectations regarding the elimination of painful practices are a reminder that it is always necessary to question the relevance of these practices and to challenge them whenever necessary. This is the case for the various mutilations described above that are routinely carried out, such as the dehorning of cattle, castration and tail docking of piglets, beak trimming of poultry, etc. In 2016, one of the objectives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s first ‘animal welfare’ strategy was precisely to reduce as far as possible, or even ban, these mutilations, or, if they must be carried out, to allow the use of a therapeutic arsenal to relieve them. The application, from 1 January 2022, of the ban on castration of piglets without anaesthetic is an illustration of this, as is the possibility given to farmers of anaesthetizing the horn nerve during dehorning. The elimination of painful practices most often requires adaptations to farming conditions or the production chain and is proving to be a powerful driving force in the move towards farming systems that are more favourable to animal welfare. The most suitable procedure must be implemented taking into account its feasibility in the production system envisaged, its compatibility with the regulations (marketing authorization and maximum residue limit, in particular), the possible risks for the farmer and, where applicable, the cost of implementation.

Example of application of the 3S principle: cattle dehorning

Why have hornless cattle? Cattle horns are a source of injury, not only to other cattle but also to the farmer and other farm workers (technicians, vets). In extensive systems, where space allows cattle to avoid each other in the event of conflict, horns do not pose a problem. In stanchion barns, where cattle are tied up, the risk of injury is low. On the other hand, in a more restricted space, as is often the case in loose housing, it is more difficult for an animal to move away in the event of conflict, and horns can cause serious injury (rupture, for example) to cattle as well as to farmers and vets.

Eliminating the source of pain A first solution to avoid having to dehorn cattle is to adapt buildings and equipment so that animals with horns can be reared in complete safety. Another solution, which has already been implemented, is to use semen from bulls carrying the polled gene, so that the animals are polled. However, there are currently two major obstacles to the widespread use of this option: the number of breeding bulls available to allow a wide enough choice, and the social acceptability of hornless cows to consumers and breeders, since the image of the animal and/or production may be affected. In addition, the presence of horn stumps is sometimes an advantage for subsequent restraint. Continued

124

Improving Animal Welfare

Continued.

Replacing practices with less-painful ones The various techniques that can be used to dehorn cattle are not equivalent in terms of pain. Dehorning adult cattle, which consists of cutting off the horn with a saw (wire saw or hydraulic saw), causes a great deal of pain, and risks causing complications (haemorrhage, sinus infection etc.) because the horn is an extension of the skull bone. It is therefore preferable to destroy the horn bud (a cluster of cells that will form the horn) present in calves before the age of two months. Destroying this bud is known as disbudding. This practice is much less invasive than the dehorning of adult cattle and should therefore be preferred. Numerous studies report that disbudding by cauterization using a hot iron or an electric iron is less painful than disbudding using chemical coatings or pencils (NaOH). The latter is less painful than dehorning with shears. A fairly recent review therefore concludes that thermal cauterization should be preferred. We also know that disbudding should be carried out as early as possible, ideally before the age of four weeks, and before two months in all cases.

Relieving unavoidable pain When pain is unavoidable, the principle of early, multimodal analgesia adapted to the animal and the procedure should be adopted. Once the least-painful technique has been selected, the next step is to choose the protocol that will provide the most effective analgesia. It appears, for example, that analgesia provided by anaesthesia of the cornual nerve significantly reduces pain during disbudding and the immediate post-disbudding period (two hours) when disbudding is carried out using the cauterization method. If this anaesthetic is used prior to disbudding using other methods, pain is reduced to a lesser extent, but is significantly reduced compared with the absence of local anaesthetic. Given that the analgesia provided by the cornual nerve block lasts only a few hours, the use of additional analgesic substances is justified. Thus, the ideal analgesic protocol is a combination of sedation and preoperative administration of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), as well as local anaesthesia of the cornual nerve prior to disbudding. Preoperative administration of NSAIDs is in line with the concept of early analgesia: the earlier pain is prevented and controlled, the better the results, and the lower the doses to be used. The use of several routes of administration (anaesthetic blocks, intravenous or intramuscular route etc.) and different molecules with complementary activity and duration of action corresponds to the concept of multimodal analgesia: using the whole of the available arsenal by all possible routes (Fig. 3.18). Once again, implementing the most appropriate procedure may come up against regulatory constraints (e.g. anaesthesia of the horn nerve, which is only authorized by the farmer if he has been trained) or practical constraints, such as the training of those involved. (a)

(b)

Fig. 3.18 a, b. Pain during dehorning and disbudding is a major risk to cattle welfare. Good practice can reduce the animal’s pain. To achieve this, the calf must be properly restrained (body and head) and the area must be clipped. The calf is given multimodal analgesia (local anaesthetic and anti-inflammatories); sedation also reduces stress and eliminates the need for a restraint cage (a). Cautery equipment (shown here with a gas iron) after disbudding (b).

Better Management of Animal Pain

125

Example of application of the 3S principle: castration in piglets Piglet castration is a practice carried out on male piglets to avoid the boar-like odour of meat when cooked, an undesirable smell or taste in pork that comes from chemicals produced by sexually mature males. It also aims to limit the aggressiveness and sexual behaviour of whole males, which can be risk factors for the farmer and other pigs. Surgical castration was carried out without anaesthetic, before seven days of age, generating stress and pain with the incision of the epidermis and removal of the testicles from inside the scrotum. This practice without pain management has been banned since 31 December 2021. It is now compulsory to use at least one analgesic or painkiller and not to tear the tissue. Various alternatives are available.

Eliminating the source of pain A first solution is to eliminate castration by rearing whole males. The risk for these animals is the aggressiveness of uncastrated males and mounting-type sexual behaviour associated with the secretion of testosterone, which induces lesions on the rear of the body of males mounted. Groups and buildings therefore need to be managed and appropriate equipment chosen to limit this aggressive and sexual behaviour, and to ensure the safety of farmers when working with the animals. Genetic selection work is underway to limit aggressiveness and reduce the production of hormones responsible for boar-tainted carcasses when cooked.

Replacing practices with less painful ones The different techniques that can be used to castrate male pigs are not equivalent in terms of pain. Compared with early surgical castration without analgesia, immunocastration, chemical castration against GnRH (Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone, or gonadotropin-releasing hormone, a neurohormone involved in reproduction) is carried out at the end of the fattening period. It consists of two injections, at eight weeks and then six to four weeks before slaughter, to stop the production of steroids by the testicles. The practice can cause stress in the animals due to the restraint required to intervene, but this is limited in the absence of tissue damage. An alternative would be to destroy testicular tissue with mineral salts.

Relieving unavoidable pain When pain is unavoidable with the maintenance of surgical castration, the principle of analgesic or local anaesthetic treatment should be adopted, adapted to the animal and the procedure. For example, lidocaine as a local anaesthetic, combined with an anti-inflammatory, manages pain during and after castration, although it is not 100% effective. Procaine as a local anaesthetic has also been tested, with the advantage of having marketing authorization, unlike lidocaine. However, the efficacy of this product appears to be lower, despite a minimum delay of ten minutes between the intratesticular injection and castration. Once again, the implementation of the most appropriate procedure may come up against regulatory constraints or practices involving the training of those involved.

Summary The sources of pain in livestock farming are many and varied, and pain has a major impact on the animal’s welfare. It is possible to detect pain, mainly using behavioural indicators, but also physiological or zootechnical indicators. Pain management is based on the 3Ss: eliminating sources of pain, substituting less-painful practices and relieving residual pain. In all cases, doubt must benefit the animal. This area is currently the subject of a great deal of research, which will undoubtedly benefit the animal and the quality of the farmer’s work. Continued

126

Improving Animal Welfare

Continued. Is the procedure essential, justified and/or necessary? No

Yes Are the different techniques equivalent in terms of pain?

DELETE the source of pain Yes

Possibility of raising whole pigs Already implemented (Cooperl Welfare Pigs) Combination genetics, diet and farming practices

Assessment of the level of residual pain caused Ease the pain Analgesia • Early • Multimodal Anaesthesia (local or general) and NSAIDs

3.5 The Role of Genetics in Improving Animal Welfare 3.5.1 The role of genetics in many disturbances for animals Genetic selection consists of encouraging and developing desired characteristics in farm animals by selecting male and female breeding stock with these characteristics in each generation, such as milk or egg production, growth rate, feed efficiency or tolerance of contact with humans. Genetic selection was the main driving force behind domestication and still plays a major role in the evolution of livestock farming, as we continue to select ever more efficient animals. By way of example, genetic progress in the three main dairy cattle breeds present in France (Normande, Montbéliarde and Prim’Holstein) has represented an increase of 65–100 kg of milk per lactation every year for over 20 years (Fig. 3.19). Prim’Holstein cows, the most productive breed, now produce an average of 9,252 kg of milk per lactation in France (calculated over 305 days of lactation; milk recording 2018), compared with 7200 kg in 1996, and ‘high-producing’ cows often exceed 13,000 kg

No SUBSTITUTE practice A by practice B less painful Use of immunocastration Vaccine preventing ‘sexual’ development of males

of milk per lactation. Improvements in performance in other areas of production (pigs, poultry etc.) are also notable. The new selection methods (known as genomic selection), based on molecular markers associated with the desired characteristics, are even more effective. However, genetic selection, as practised in the last century, has often been associated with a deterioration in the welfare of farm animals. The remarkable increase in production performance has been accompanied by numerous disturbances in almost all species. In extreme cases, such as broiler chickens, the locomotor and cardiovascular systems are no longer able to cope with the excessive muscle growth driven by the genetic characteristics of the animals, resulting in animals unable to move and dying early of heart failure. As a result, the majority of farm animals suffer more frequently from locomotor, reproductive and behavioural problems, and are more susceptible to disease in particular. This deterioration in the general condition of animals is largely due to a failure to take account of so-called ‘functional’ traits, which are not directly involved in production but which make a major contribution

The Role of Genetics in Improving Animal Welfare

127

8 000 Kg of milk 7 000 6 000 5 000 4 000 3 000 2 000 1 000

2020

2010

2000

1990

1980

1970

1960

0

Fig. 3.19. Changes in the yield (in kg of milk/year) of dairy cows in France over the period 1960–2020 (source: GEB/Idele/Eurostat).

The genetic basis of selection Genetic information is carried by the chromosomes located in the nucleus of each cell. Each chromosome can be seen as a volume in our genetic encyclopaedia, containing the information needed for the construction and functioning of the organism. This information is encoded in the form of a double helical chain of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) made up of a succession of nucleotides, themselves made up of a nucleic base – adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) or thymine (T) – linked to a sugar – in this case deoxyribose – which is itself linked to a phosphate group. The order in which the nucleotides (A, C, G, T) follow one another along a DNA strand constitutes the sequence of this strand. It is read by triplets of nucleotides (e.g. AAT, CGA, TTT etc.), the sequence of which forms the gene. For example, ATT GCT TAC GAT TTC is a DNA sequence with five triplets that form the lambda gene. Some genes can have 3000 triplets. The information contained in genes enables the synthesis of the proteins that make up the body and are necessary for its functioning. However, genes represent only a small part of the total DNA sequence, with the intergenic sequences essentially playing a supporting and regulatory role. The complete genome of a large number of species has been sequenced. For example, the porcine genome is housed in 38 chromosomes (including 2 XY sex chromosomes). It was sequenced in 2012 by an international consortium. The size of the entire genome is 2.8 billion nucleic bases and it contains 21,640 genes. The DNA sequence varies considerably between individuals of the same species. These variations (mutations) in the genome are the basis for differences between individuals, known as ‘phenotypic variations’, when these variations are passed on from one generation to the next. Certain characteristics, such as coat colour, are controlled by a small number of genes and are passed on according to Mendel’s laws. These characteristics can be easily selected. These mutations can also lead to dysfunction of the gene in which they are located, and in some cases to functional disorders. For example, the Piétrain breed of pig is well known for its sensitivity to stress, which can trigger an acute syndrome of malignant hyperthermia with tachycardia, hyperventilation, muscular rigidity and acidosis, leading to death within minutes. There are many so-called ‘genetic’ Continued

128

Improving Animal Welfare

Continued. diseases resulting from mutations in the DNA sequence. In animals, individuals carrying these mutations can be identified by DNA analysis (genotyping) and excluded from reproduction to prevent the spread of these undesirable characteristics. In other cases, mutations can be favourable, such as the mutation in the gene coding for the E. coli bacterial receptor, which leads to increased resistance to diarrhoeal syndrome in piglets. As such, it can be advantageously selected in farms to improve animal health. Such favourable mutations are known in various species and, in particular, in laboratory mice. It is therefore tempting to try to transpose them to farm animals. Genome manipulation techniques make it possible to inactivate a gene or introduce a modified gene into an animal’s genome. These transgenesis procedures are not authorized in farm animals. More recently, new techniques for intervening in the genome using ‘molecular scissors’ (thanks to CRISPR-Cas9, the discovery of which was widely publicized and awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2020) make it possible to envisage highly targeted interventions in the genome. As far as welfare is concerned, this could result in animals that are resistant to certain diseases or cattle without the horns that occur naturally in certain breeds. However, we need to be vigilant about the possible appearance, during selection, of unsuspected unfavourable effects, or about obtaining exacerbated production traits (hypertypes, for example culard sheep obtained by inactivating the myostatin gene). Most mutations are silent or have very little effect on the trait in question. For example, height is an individual characteristic that can be transmitted, but studies in the human species have shown that several hundred mutations are involved in determining it. These traits are known as ‘quantitative’ traits, such as growth rate, milk production and many behavioural characteristics. The effects of genetic selection based on the measurement of these traits are weak at each generation, as shown by the illustrations in this chapter on milk production in cattle and growth rate in pigs. Knowledge of genome sequences and the development of genotyping techniques enabling an identity map of genetic variations to be drawn up for each individual opened the way, at the beginning of the 21st century, to the technique known as ‘genomic selection’. Instead of selecting animals on the basis of the phenotypic characteristics of breeding stock, this approach aims to directly select the molecular polymorphisms that are favourable for the desired trait. This involves establishing a genetic map for each individual and calculating the correlations between genomic variability and phenotypic characteristics in the animal population studied. Each variable site (locus) in the genome is then assigned a genetic value, which when combined with all the sites of variability analysed gives the overall genetic value of the animal studied, depending on the selection objectives. Animals are selected on the basis of their genetic map, which makes it possible to predict (with a greater or lesser margin of error) their phenotypic profile. It is therefore possible to take into account a greater number of traits, which are even more difficult to measure, provided that the genomic determinants have been studied beforehand. Genomic selection is now used for most domestic species.

to animal welfare. For example, the ease with which animals give birth and the survival of newborns, the quality of their legs, the efficiency of their immune system and their behavioural characteristics were rarely taken into account in the first selection schemes. What is more, the effects of genetic selection interacted with a constant impoverishment of the animals’ living environment, with the common aim of rationalizing breeding as much as possible. It is therefore difficult to separate the effect of genetic selection from that of changes in animal-rearing conditions. For all these reasons, the average production life of a Prim’Holstein,

i.e. before it is culled for slaughter, is two years and 153 days, or 2.4 lactations, meaning that the productive life period represents just 47% of its existence (2009 data), whereas a cow is capable of completing more than eight lactations. The issue of the relationship between genetic selection and animal welfare will be addressed in three stages: first, questioning the objectives of technical performance in selection schemes; secondly, considering the possibilities of taking account of functional traits; and finally, looking at genetic solutions to specific animal welfare problems.

The Role of Genetics in Improving Animal Welfare

3.5.2 Questioning zootechnical performance objectives in selection schemes Production performance is a major challenge for livestock breeding, and genetic selection is an essential tool for improving it, but we need to ask ourselves whether it is appropriate to select animals for ever-higher performance and, in particular, to consider the limits of individual performance. The number of piglets weaned has risen from 20.2 per year per sow in 1980 to 29.4 in 2016, an increase of 45% in 35 years. This increase combines a higher birth rate per sow and earlier weaning. The growth rate of fattening pigs has risen from 666 g/day in 1985 to 817 g/day in 2015, an increase of 23% in 30 years (Fig. 3.20). The question arises as to how far this performance can be improved. These increasingly efficient animals are also increasingly vulnerable to disease and environmental stress, which limits genetic progress by preventing them from expressing their full potential. This fragility manifests itself in so-called ‘breeding diseases’, i.e. those caused by germs that are most often non-specific and essentially linked to environmental conditions, such as mastitis or lameness. They also result in

129

behavioural disorders such as pecking in poultry and caudophagy in pigs, as well as losses in production or product quality due to mortality or sensitivity to stress. As a result, the use of antibiotics has increased as a preventive measure, as has the use of mutilations (beak trimming, tail docking), which are painful practices for the animal. It is easy to see that these procedures limit animal welfare. The use of antibiotics and mutilation are now being called into question5 and livestock farming must adapt to these changes. Hyperspecialized genetic selection also results in animals that are said to have ‘no economic value’. This is the case with male chicks from egg-laying lines, which are sent to the crusher after sexing at birth: they are of no interest for meat animal production because of their poor growth performance, due to genetic selection focused exclusively on the egg-laying performance of females. This is also the case for kids, and even male calves of dairy breeds, which the meat industry does not really know how to value. Alternatives do exist. For example, research is being carried out to enable eggs to be sexed at the earliest possible stage, so that only female embryos can be kept, and eventually male eggs can be kept for normal consommation. The French

850

800

750

700

650

Fig. 3.20. Average daily gain (in grams) of pigs between 30 and 115 days of age over the period 1980–2016 (according to Ifip).

2016

2014

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

600

130

Improving Animal Welfare

Minister for Agriculture has confirmed that from 1 January 2022, all hatcheries will have to be equipped with in ovo sexing machines to prevent the elimination of male chicks by the end of 2022. Another, much more sustainable, solution is to use dual-purpose lines of hens (meat and eggs) so that the males can be used as broilers and the females for laying, which also has the advantage of a very low incidence of pecking behaviour. In addition, the relevance of selecting extreme genetic types, known as hypertypes, needs to be questioned. For example, as we have seen, the Piétrain pig is an animal that is extremely sensitive to stress. And in ‘culard’ animals, which exist in several species, such as the Belgian Blanc Bleue breed of cows, most births are by caesarean section. This is also the case with hyperprolific lines, where the females have been selected to increase the number of newborns such as pigs or sheep: the number of animals weaned is indeed higher, but the number of stillborn animals and mortality in early life are also higher.

3.5.3 Taking functional characteristics into account The level of production can be directly responsible for the degradation of functional traits.

This is because there is competition between the different biological processes for the necessarily limited resources available from the environment, and in particular from food. For example, there may be competition between the resources mobilized for production and the capacity to adapt. On the other hand, functional traits that are not directly linked to production have long been neglected in selection schemes, and have gradually deteriorated (see above). All these traits are involved in the satisfactory biological functioning of animals and therefore play a major role in ensuring their welfare. Figure 3.21, borrowed from the Institut du porc (Ifip), shows the evolution of selection objectives over the last 50 years in pigs. In the 1960s and 1970s, growth and adiposity, i.e. the proportion of fat, were the only selection criteria. In the 1980s, selection was extended to feed efficiency (the amount of feed needed to produce one kilo of meat), carcass conformation and organoleptic quality of the meat, with all these traits still directly linked to production. Then the litter size criterion was added, which produced hyperprolific lines. It was not until the beginning of the 20th century that strictly functional characteristics were sought, such as the quality of legs, the survival of newborns and maternal aptitudes. In the last ten years or so, longevity, disease resistance

Diversification of selected characters Increasingly complex characters 1960–1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

• Growth • Adiposity • Efficiency eating • Quality carcasses • Quality of meat

• Litter size • Maternal skills • Longevity • Resistance to diseases • Robustness • Boar taint

Fig. 3.21. Evolution of selection objectives in pigs (according to Ifip).

The Role of Genetics in Improving Animal Welfare

and robustness have been added to new meatquality criteria. We are therefore seeing a huge diversification in the traits selected, with increasingly complex functional traits being taken into account. In the case of cattle, pure production traits now account for only 40% of the selection index6 and functional traits such as udder health, reproduction, animal morphology and foot health are now given greater weight in the selection index (Fig. 3.22). The current trend is to integrate all functional traits into the concept of ‘robustness’, which refers to the animal’s ability to express its production potential in a wide range of environments without compromising its physical health and welfare. In this context, the primary objective of animal breeding is to maintain the highest level of production and feed efficiency, provided that this does not have a significant negative impact on the health, welfare and reproductive capacity of the animals. This means balancing production traits with functional traits that contribute to the health and welfare of the animals. To this end, it is important to understand and be able to predict the trade-offs between the various vital functions. When resources are not sufficient

131

to ensure the simultaneous expression of production potential and the preservation of other vital functions, we can observe a genotype × environment interaction. This results in the appearance of functional disorders (locomotion, reproduction, increased susceptibility to disease etc.) when production traits take priority over other traits. For example, glucocorticoids, major stress response hormones, are one of the mechanisms involved in these trade-offs between production (growth rate, importance of fat tissue) and adaptive responses. It is important to stress that defining selection criteria can be difficult. Above all, measuring functional traits can be tricky compared with production measurements, especially on a large scale and under field conditions. This is the case for behavioural traits such as docility (even though several docility tests have been developed by researchers) or social behaviour, but also for immunocompetence and disease resistance. It is easy to see how the detailed characterization of the various aptitudes mentioned above – known as ‘phenotyping’ – becomes a difficult undertaking, especially when these characteristics have to be measured in a large number of animals in order to

Milking speed 5% Functional longevity 5%

Udder health 15%

Production 35%

Morphology 15% Reproduction 25%

Fig. 3.22. Relative importance of the different criteria in the overall selection index for the Prim’Holstein breed.

132

Improving Animal Welfare

choose the breeding stock that offers the best compromise. As a result, animal phenotyping has become much more diversified, taking advantage of the many monitoring and data analysis tools available to collect physiological and behavioural information (see Chapter 2.7). High-throughput phenotyping provides a much more complete understanding of the animals and allows a wider range of functional characteristics to be taken into account. Genomic selection is a major asset for implementing such selection on a broader basis of traits, and, in particular, for taking account of functional traits, which largely determine animal welfare (see box on the basis of selection). 3.5.4

Summary Genetics is a powerful lever for improving animal welfare. First and foremost, production objectives need to be better balanced with animal health and welfare, criteria that are now taken into account. Today, the key word is robustness, which combines the ability to maintain a high level of production and good feed efficiency without damaging the animals’ health, welfare or reproductive capacity. The methods used are traditional genetic selection, by introducing robustness traits into the selection equation, and genomic selection, which is now developing very rapidly. Progress in selection is based on in-depth phenotyping of functional traits and on a precise definition of selection objectives. Lastly, we cannot afford to avoid an ethical debate on the new prospects for genetic engineering (particularly CRISPR-Cas9), not only in terms of animal welfare but also in terms of social acceptability.

Consider genetic solutions to specific problems

Two examples can be cited to illustrate the use of genetic solutions to resolve animal welfare problems, but there are many other situations where genetics can be put to use. The first example is the surgical castration of pigs. Male pigs are castrated to avoid the specific unpleasant odours of the meat when cooked, known as ‘sexual odours’ or ‘boar taint’. The level of production of odorous compounds, androstenone and scatole in particular, is partly under genetic control, which opens up perspectives for the selection of animals with low production of these compounds. The research is difficult – it has already been going on for several decades and the results are slow – but we hope that it will lead to interesting results so that we can breed whole males (uncastrated) without any risk of deteriorating meat quality. The other example is the hornless gene in cattle. The absence of horns means that dehorning or disbudding can be avoided, procedures that are painful for the animals when carried out without anaesthetic or analgesia, and unpleasant for farmers. The hornless gene occurs naturally in certain breeds, such as Angus and Hereford, and also sporadically in many breeds, such as Limousin and Charolais. These hornless animals can be used to develop genetically hornless lines, which is an obvious advantage for the welfare of the animals, and the farmers.

3.6 Improving Transport and Slaughter Conditions With the collaboration of Cécile Bourguet, researcher-consultant in ethology, Director of the bureau d’études et de travaux de recherches en éthologie (ETRE), and Claudia Terlouw, researcher (UMR Herbivores) 3.6.1 A few preliminary remarks The transport and slaughter of farm animals are critical phases in terms of animal protection:

•

•

•

A large number of animals are involved. Annual meat consumption in the European Union represents around 360 million mammals, pigs, sheep, goats and cattle, and over 4 billion poultry. In addition, there is considerable movement of live animals, sometimes over long distances for journeys lasting several days. There are extensive regulations in this area. Of particular note are the two European regulations on the protection of animals during transport (Regulation 1/2005/EC) and the protection of animals at the time of killing (Regulation 1099/2009/EC). These texts have been transposed into national regulations. Attention must be focused on the results in terms of animal protection and not just on

Improving Transport and Slaughter Conditions

the means used. It is therefore important to understand the potential sources of stress and pain during these phases so that we can take effective action to improve transport and slaughter conditions. 3.6.2 The main stages of transport and slaughter Transport to the abattoir begins on the farm, when the animals are sorted and usually put on a diet (to reduce pollution from the animals, the lorries and the abattoir). For example, the (usually automatic) collection of broilers from farms, the mixing of animals from several groups to form batches of the same weight (pigs), or the grouping of grazing ruminants (cattle, sheep) are all part of the first stage of the slaughter phase, as the animals are handled and removed from their usual rearing conditions. These common practices can induce intense stress (fear, flight behaviour, fighting between animals from different social groups etc.).

133

This is followed by the loading of the animals onto the transport vehicles, then the transport itself (Fig. 3.23), which may be in crates (poultry and small animals) or foot (especially pigs, sheep and cattle), and finally the unloading at the point of arrival. At the slaughterhouse, the animals are first received and housed, then, after a rest period to allow them to recover from the stress of transport, they are taken back to the stunning station via the slaughter line (Fig. 3.24). Sometimes the animals are taken directly to the slaughterhouse from the lorry, without passing through a housing phase. Before slaughter, the animals are kept in restrainers or hung by the legs (poultry). These devices are adapted to the objective of effective stunning, which aims to induce a loss of consciousness and sentience in the animal to avoid the pain and anxiety associated with killing. Stunning is compulsory for all animals, unless a specific dispensation is granted for slaughter in accordance with religious rites, respecting religious freedom.

Fig. 3.23. Transport vehicles are fitted with systems to adjust the level of ventilation to the climatic conditions.

134

Improving Animal Welfare

Fig. 3.24. Sheep in a corridor leading to the stunning station. Here the walls are not high enough to prevent the animals from being distracted or frightened by events outside the corridor. The floor and walls are made of metal, which creates reflections and makes it difficult for the animals to move forward. The animals may refuse to walk on this type of floor.

Stunning is carried out using a variety of procedures, depending on the species and the slaughterhouse: electrical, mechanical or gaseous. In electrical stunning, an electric current is passed through the animal’s brain, creating a cerebral state that does not allow normal neuronal function, thus inducing unconsciousness. This technique can be used on all species, but in France it is currently only applied to pigs, sheep and poultry. Mechanical stunning uses a striker applied to the skull to destroy part of the brain and induce unconsciousness. It can be used for all species but mainly concerns cattle, which are stunned using a piercing rod gun. Animals stunned with gas are immersed in a gas mixture containing carbon dioxide. This technique is used for poultry and, to a lesser extent, pigs. Finally, the animal is bled to death.

3.6.3 The main sources of stress and pain All the situations in these phases represent different potential sources of stress for the animal. Stress of a physical nature is linked to handling, particularly during grouping, loading and unloading (Fig. 3.25), as well as to physical discomfort on

the premises or in the lorries, food deprivation, temperature variations or extremes, overlapping with other animals etc. All this can cause fatigue, hunger, thermal and respiratory discomfort and/or pain. Novelty and suddenness of stimuli are the two major dimensions of stimuli that induce psychological stress in animals. Fear of humans and social disruption (separation from social partners and agonistic interactions with strangers) are also sources of psychological stress. All these situations also involve numerous potential sources of pain for the animal. During handling, the animal is likely to interact with the equipment, its environment or fellow animals. For adult cattle and pigs, the electric prods may also be used under certain conditions. Regulation 1099/2009/EC stipulates that ‘operators or any person involved in the killing of animals should take the necessary measures to avoid pain and minimise distress and suffering of animals during the slaughtering or killing process taking into account best practices in the field and the methods permitted under this Regulation’. It is important to remember that intentional painful handling, such as blows, the use of prods or the touching of sensitive areas, is strictly prohibited.

Improving Transport and Slaughter Conditions

135

Fig. 3.25. Unloading bull calves at the slaughterhouse.

Pain can be caused by poorly performed stunning, or even by bleeding if the lack of stunning has not been detected. These are cases of regulatory non-compliance. They should remain rare because the stunning and bleeding processes are checked by the operators on each animal. Care is therefore taken to identify the absence or failure of complete stunning so that it can be repeated if necessary. The physiological and health condition of the animals has a major influence on their response to these various constraints and can be an aggravating factor. Their age is an important factor. For example, animal protection associations denounce the transport of newborn calves across Europe, from production countries to countries where they will be fattened. ‘Transportability’ is defined in the regulations and excludes animals in poor general condition, with movement difficulties or a certain number of lesions or pathological problems. Females in advanced gestation or having recently given birth are also excluded. Pre-slaughtering and slaughtering procedures are complex and often combine several of the stress factors listed above. Transport,

for example, is associated with a change in the animals’ physical and social environment, human handling and lorry movements that can lead to injury, as well as possible uncomfortable weather conditions. Transport in general and longdistance transport in particular are high-risk situations in terms of animal protection. All the sources of stress and pain described above can be exacerbated by hazards linked to weather or transport conditions (breakdowns, accidents) and administrative constraints (crossing borders) or health constraints (declaring an illness during the journey). The combination of these different factors can lead to dramatic situations for the animals. The transport of live animals, in general, and long-distance transport, in particular, is therefore widely called into question. It must therefore be recognized that the term ‘welfare’ is not adapted to the situation of animals in the extreme conditions of transport and slaughter. The main objective is to limit any avoidable pain, distress or suffering, not to achieve a positive physical and mental state, which is rather illusory under current conditions. For this reason, the term ‘animal protection’ or

136

Improving Animal Welfare

‘good slaughterhouse treatment’ is more commonly used.

3.6.5 Avenues for improvement to limit potential sources of stress and pain

3.6.4 Assessment of animal protection during transport and slaughter

The aim is to control sources of stress and pain, for a number of reasons:

Assessing the level of protection afforded to animals during transport procedures and at the slaughterhouse is an essential part of any approach to progress. The assessment covers the planning of operations and the appropriate design of premises, the presence of qualified and competent staff, and the quality and functionality of equipment and its correct use by operators. All these criteria are important to ensure that operations are carried out under the best possible conditions to protect the animals. However, the essential criteria concern the animals themselves: health and physiological condition during transport and on arrival at destination (length and quality of journey), waiting time before unloading (organization of the reception facility), falls and slips (quality of the floor and handling of the animals), thermal comfort, use of electric prods, and vocalizations of the animals (pain and stress). ‘Animals shall only be killed after stunning [...]. The loss of consciousness and sentience shall be maintained until the death of the animal’ (Regulation 1099/2009/EC). The regulations therefore require bleeding to be carried out on an animal rendered unconscious by stunning (mechanical, gaseous or electrical) unless an express derogation on religious grounds is granted under certain conditions and with proof to be provided. The effectiveness of stunning is a critical point and the detection of any sign of consciousness or risk of consciousness before the animal’s death must give rise to renewed stunning. The frequency of failed stunning is an important criterion of the quality of the slaughter process. As with the assessment of welfare in livestock farming, which was developed in Part 2, there are guidelines for assessing the level of protection afforded to animals during transport and at the slaughterhouse, including numerical rating scales. These make it possible to assess the situation objectively and monitor progress in the quality approach.

• • •

for the respect and safety of animals (animal protection); to make work easier and safer for operators, given that handling animals for slaughter and transport is a potentially accident-prone operation; and to optimize carcass and meat quality. Indeed, the various stimuli described above during the transport and slaughter phases can induce lesions, haematomas and even fractures, which degrade the presentation quality of the carcasses. In addition, these stimuli have a signifcant infuence on the energy metabolism of the muscles of live animals and during the meat maturation process and can signifcantly deteriorate the taste qualities of the meat.

In the normal process of post mortem muscle metabolism, the reserve glycogen undergoes anaerobic catabolism (degradation); that is to say in the absence of oxygen since the blood supply has ceased. This leads to a gradual acidification of the muscle, necessary for its development into tender, tasty meat. These complex mechanisms can be disrupted by the animals’ physical activity and stress during the period leading up to slaughter. These stimuli deplete muscle glycogen reserves, which influences the transformation of muscle into meat, resulting in hard, dry, dark-coloured meat. They can also lead to excessive activation of post mortem glycogen metabolism, resulting in soft, exudative meat (known as pissy), which is pale in colour, unattractive and unpalatable. Limiting the fatigue associated with long journeys and handling that is not respectful of the animals, resting at the slaughterhouse (Fig. 3.26) in satisfactory housing conditions (comfortable premises, watering, even feeding, ventilation, misting to cool the animals) and being taken to the stunning station under less stressful conditions help to limit these quality defects that reduce the value of the carcases and the quality of the meat.

Improving Transport and Slaughter Conditions

137

Fig. 3.26. A comfortable abattoir sheep pen: good lighting, satisfactory environmental conditions (ventilation, temperature), bedding, watering, sheep feed and sufficient space. Depending on their category, size (cattle) and waiting time, the animals can be housed in individual cubicles or in a group pen.

It is clear that the interests of the animals, the operators and the farmers converge, enabling them to make the most of their animals in ethically acceptable conditions. Three principles guide action aimed at controlling sources of stress and pain in order to improve the conditions under which farm animals are transported and slaughtered:

• • •

recognition of the sentient nature of animals, respect for their sensitivity and their physiological and behavioural needs; functionality of the equipment, both in terms of design and use; and training of operators, raising their awareness of animal protection (interpersonal skills) and the acquisition of technical skills (knowhow).

Recognition of the sentient nature of animals The first principle for action relates to knowledge of animals. Respect for physiological and behavioural needs is a prerequisite for animal protection, known as ‘appropriate treatment’. We can mention the importance of the environment (temperature/humidity); access to food and drink, particularly during transport and long stays in the slaughterhouse; and taking account

of social behaviour (distress at separation from partners or aggressive behaviour when animals are mixed). A good knowledge of the sensory world and emotional repertoire of animals is essential, not only for the design of equipment, but also for the way in which they are handled. These concepts are presented in Chapter 1.4 on animal sentience and in Chapter 3.2 on improving interpersonal practices. An essential point to remember in this context is the notion of ‘flight distance’, i.e. the importance of the position and distance of the human in relation to the animal when it comes to handling it. If the human is outside the escape zone, the animal will not move away from the human. A second concept is the ‘balance point’, which is at shoulder level. If the human moves towards the animal’s head, it will tend to turn or move backwards, whereas if the human positions himself behind the balance point, while remaining in the animal’s field of vision, it will tend to move forwards. These simple precautions make it possible to move animals in a completely natural way without having to use traumatic objects. Another point worth mentioning here is the importance of the sound and visual environment.

138

Improving Animal Welfare

Curved corridors (Fig. 3.27) facilitate the animals’ progress much better than straight or right-angled corridors, which create a dead-end effect because the animals cannot see the way out. The animals are also more likely to move from a dark area to a brighter one. In addition, frequent changes in light levels should be avoided, as this disturbs them and makes them hesitant in their movements. We take advantage of these characteristics in the design of the animal traffic corridors. Care must also be taken to limit, as far as possible, any loud, sudden or strident noises likely to frighten the animals, whether they are produced by equipment (jacks, slings, closing doors etc.) or by the shouts of operators. In fact, the animals are in an unfamiliar environment and the stress factors associated with this novelty must be avoided. Finally, cattle, sheep and pigs are gregarious animals that move more easily in groups. Their movements can be facilitated by the use of animal leaders, as is the case with sheep. Slaughterhouse regulations, however, require clarification of the compliance of this practice and the conditions necessary to ensure that it is not a source of stress for the leading animals.

Men’s hallway

0,90 m

Equipment functionality The second principle for action concerns the functionality of the facilities. The design and construction of facilities must respect all the principles mentioned above concerning the way in which animals behave. A great deal of work has been done to optimize facilities; for example, the design of lorries and slaughterhouses, the design of loading and unloading ramps, the shape of corridors, the management of traffic circuits, non-return gates to prevent reversing in corridors (Fig. 3.28), the existence of misters and drinking troughs in accommodation areas to facilitate physiological recovery after transport, and the quality of restraining devices (Fig. 3.29) for stunning. All the ‘details’ are important, whether they be the nature of the floor, lighting, ventilation or the presence of visual distractions. These are major factors in optimizing animal handling and limiting stress during this stage. Obviously, the equipment must be kept in good working order and regularly checked. Temple Grandin, a professor at the University of Colorado, is a pioneer in the study of animal protection in slaughterhouses and in the implementation

2 0,45 m

Animal corridor

1,50 m

3 6

1

5

1. Door (can be rolling and electrically controlled). 4 2. Corridor at the same height as the animal circulation corridor. Operators must be able to reach all work areas 20 to 35% without moving among animals. 3. Animal circulation corridor whose width must be adapted to the size (lambs, ewes, goats). 4. Ascending curve in the last metres so that the animals do not see the restraint zone from afar. 5. Full and smooth walls to limit friction (wool). 6. Possibility of putting anti-recoil bars on the ground. 7. Lighting intensity gradually increasing throughout the feed to facilitate animal movement. 8. Gate installed at the end of the corridor to block entry 7 into the restraint system in the event of a problem. Restraint system

8

Fig. 3.27. Example of the design of a curved feed alley for sheep (Bouv’Innov).

Improving Transport and Slaughter Conditions

139

Fig. 3.28. Innovative non-return gate designed by Mirus in collaboration with ETRE. Equipped with an autonomous return, it does not cause any slamming. It is robust and has no floor stops, so there are no obstacles.

of audits of establishments. Her website is a rich source of information in English (www.grandin. com). Together with the industry, it has drawn up a guide to good animal handling practices during transport and slaughter7. Operator training The third principle for action is operator training. All operators must be made aware of the challenges of animal protection and behave accordingly. This is what is called ‘interpersonal skills’. They must also be trained in the tasks entrusted to them (‘knowhow’), as stipulated in the regulations. These include the Certificat de compétences de transport routier d’ongulés et de volailles (CCTROV), which is required for all transport over 65 km, and the Certificats de compétence protection animale (CCPA), for people involved in the killing of animals. This knowhow is also reflected in the guides to good practice that professionals draw up for operators. These are technical documents presenting detailed models of standard operating procedures for each stage,

Fig. 3.29. System for restraining and conveying pigs to the stunning station. This system, which is a restrainer with a belly support belt, provides better support for the animals.

from unloading at the abattoir to the animal’s death. They are accompanied by precise instruction sheets for operators, which abattoirs must adapt to their own processes. These documents should serve as a basis for reflection in the process of developing an animal protection management plan specific to each company. For each key stage in the process, they propose self-assessment indicators and desirable objectives. The guides must provide professionals with all the information they need to carry out the various stages of transport and slaughter in a way that respects the animals and complies with the relevant European regulations (obligation of means). In addition, they must guide professionals in an ongoing process of improving practices, based

140

Improving Animal Welfare

on checks on the effectiveness of procedures using these indicators (obligation to achieve results). Since the enactment of the Agriculture and Food Act 2018, all slaughterhouses have been required to have an animal protection officer (APO), whose role is to co-ordinate and monitor the application of animal welfare procedures in the structure where he or she works. He or she is responsible for monitoring procedures and, in particular, the effectiveness of stunning. This function was created by European regulation 1099/2009/EC. Government vets, attached to the departmental directorates for population protection, play an essential role in slaughterhouses. They guarantee the safety of food of animal origin (health inspection), as well as compliance with animal handling and stunning procedures, in accordance with animal protection legislation.

3.7

Conclusion: The Concept of ‘One Welfare’

The welfare of farm animals is a key social expectation, and improving it is essential if we are Summary Transport and slaughter are critical phases in animal protection. They involve many potential sources of stress and pain, which must be clearly identified and understood in order to take effective action to improve the conditions in which animals are treated during these phases. Their physiological and behavioural needs must be respected, which requires knowledge of their sensory world and emotional repertoire. The levers for action to achieve the best level of protection for animals are: • the equipment design and operation • the operators, who have a savoir-être, i.e. correct behaviour towards animals, and a knowhow linked to their technical training and compliance with good practice guidelines, as stipulated by European regulation 1099/2009/EC. The assessment guidelines must enable the means used (technical environment and operator behaviour) to be objectively assessed, as well as the results obtained, by carrying out measurements on the animals.

to meet it. A clear understanding of animal welfare, the scientific basis on which it has been defined, the criteria to be taken into account, and the distinction between appropriate treatment and welfare are prerequisites. That was the aim of the Part 1. Knowing how to assess the welfare of farm animals scientifically and objectively, determining which indicators to prioritize and aggregating them to obtain an overall score is also an essential step before any desire for improvement. This was the aim of Part 2. Part 3 presented avenues for improvement in the main categories of risk factors for animal welfare on farms, such as the animals’ physical or social environment, husbandry practices, the relationship with the farmer, optimized health management, better consideration of pain, and genetic selection as a potential source of improvement. The final chapter dealt with the specific phases of transport and slaughter. It is important that these improvements are adapted to each farm – each situation is different – and are not made to the detriment of the farmer, whether in terms of the comfort of his work or the profitability of his farm. Moreover, improving animal welfare on farms can only be achieved if the various stakeholders and, first and foremost, the farmer take appropriate action. As we have seen throughout this book, they need to be convinced of the benefits to be gained from improving animal welfare. It is therefore particularly important to understand, and to make people understand, that improving animal welfare is a win-win concept: everyone wins provided that it is done in consultation with the various stakeholders, in a pragmatic way and taking into account the different constraints. This notion of shared benefit is reflected in the concept of ‘one welfare’. This concept emerged in 2016 and is derived from the now well-known concept of ‘one health’, which states that human health, animal health and the health of the environment are closely linked. ‘One welfare’, on the other hand, states that human welfare, animal welfare and environmental protection are also closely interlinked, and that improving one is conducive to improving the others. We have shown that animals in a better state of welfare have improved productivity, are less reactive to handling, and are sick less often. These are all factors that benefit the

Conclusion: The Concept of ‘One Welfare’

farmer, making his work more comfortable and giving him a greater sense of personal satisfaction. Also, animals with a better level of welfare will generally consume fewer inputs for the same production. They will be less sick and therefore use less medication, especially antibiotics. They will live longer, and fewer animals will need to be reared to achieve the same final output. All these factors will help protect the environment, with a reduction in the impact of livestock farming on the climate crisis, and a reduction in antibiotic resistance. Improving the welfare of farmers also benefits the welfare of the animals they rear.

141

A farmer who behaves gently towards his animals will make it easier for them to perceive and relate to humans. Similarly, if his farm is more profitable, he will have more resources to invest in animal-friendly equipment. Finally, it should be noted that, very often, acts of mistreatment, whether deliberate or not, are the result of personal, psychological or financial suffering. In conclusion, improving animal welfare on farms is everyone’s business. It can be achieved through a variety of actions specific to each farm, and is generally accompanied by an improvement in working conditions and the welfare of the farmer.

Notes Decree no. 2020-1625 of 18 December 2020 containing various measures relating to the welfare of farm and companion animals. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000042702498 2 Systematic process of data collection and analysis for the timely detection and characterization of disease outbreaks in humans and/or animals. 3 The live castration of piglets without pain management has been banned since 1 January 2022 and alternative techniques to castration have been implemented. 4 https://www.inrae.fr/sites/default/files/pdf/db2840bdb5beefcbd3903011696b1c38.pdf 5 Ecoantibio Plan: https://agriculture.gouv.fr/ecoantibio 6 The selection index is an overall value assigned to each breeding animal as an estimate of its genetic potential. It is established by combining the values attributed to the animal for each of the selection criteria retained, weighted by a coefficient proportional to the weight attributed to each of these criteria. 7 http://www.animalhandling.org/sites/default/files/forms/Animal_Handling_Guide012021.pdf 1

Quiz

Quiz – Part 1 1. Who is involved in farm animal welfare? – The vets – The food industry – Consumers – Breeders – Members of Parliament

5. Which year marked the beginning of awareness of the importance of animal welfare on farms? 1755 (Jean-Jacques Rousseau) 1959 (Russell and Burch) 1964 (Ruth Harrison) 1976 (rural code) 1997 (Treaty of Amsterdam) 2005 (Civil Code)

2. Which of the following statements are true? – 20% of Europeans say they are prepared to pay 20% more for products from animal welfare-friendly farms. – 94% of Europeans believe that protecting the welfare of farm animals is important. – So-called ‘reformist’ associations aim to improve animal rearing conditions.

6. What recommendations are mentioned in the ‘fve freedoms’ principle, a prerequisite for animal welfare on farms? – Comfortable living conditions – Being in contact with other animal species to encourage diversity – Free access to antibiotics to prevent disease – Soft music to combat stress – Permanent access to clean water

3. What are the objectives of the National Reference Centre for Animal Welfare? – Running a flm resource centre on farm happiness – Running a documentation and information platform – Providing scientifc and technical expertise

7. Which of the following best sums up the objectives associated with farm animal welfare regulations? – Drawing up regulatory texts – Making recommendations – Guaranteeing expertise – Ensuring consultation with the various stakeholders

4. What characteristic(s) of animals justify our moral consideration? – Animals have no souls. – Animals are sentient beings. – Animals have an important economic dimension. – Animals can suffer.

• • • • • •

8. What actions were targeted at European level over the period 2016–2020? – Increasing animal-centred welfare measures – Creating animal welfare reference centres – Demanding ‘welfare’ skills from farmers

©2024 CAB International. Understanding, Assessing and Improving Farm Animal Welfare (ed. Luc Mounier)

143

144

Quiz

– Provide consumers with information on the farming method used – Training professionals to assess farm welfare 9. Which of the following best sums up the scale (or scales) at which farm animal welfare regulation operates? – Europe-wide only – Only in France – National, European and global scales 10. Under both European and French regulations, animals are defined as sentient living beings. There are several dimensions to the sentience of animals. – A sensory dimension – A cognitive dimension – An emotional dimension – A genetic dimension – A behavioural dimension 11. Animal emotions are not automatic responses; they depend on how the animal perceives and evaluates the situation it is confronted with. Which of the following characteristics of the situation contribute to the animal’s assessment? – What’s new – Remoteness – The predictable aspect – Negative and/or positive valence 12. Farm animals feel positive emotions such as joy or pleasure: true or false? – True – False 13. An emotional reaction is not synonymous with a state of welfare. Which of the following statements do you think is true? – The emotion expressed by the animal defnes its own state of welfare (T / F) – The animal’s emotion lasts longer than its state of welfare (T / F) – An animal’s state of welfare lasts longer than its emotions, which are ephemeral (T / F) 14. An emotional experience alters the way the animal perceives its environment, giving rise to cognitive biases. Which of the following statements is true? – These cognitive biases persist the longer the emotional experience occurs in adulthood.

– These cognitive biases persist for longer the younger the emotional experience. – The persistence of these cognitive biases does not vary according to the age at which the emotional experience occurs. 15. The emotional component of sentience varies from animal to animal, depending on: – only the animal’s past emotional experiences. – both the animal’s past and present emotional experiences. – just genetic factors that characterize the animal. – both the animal’s emotional experiences and its genetic characteristics. 16. Which of the following statements are true? – Animal welfare and animal health are exactly the same thing. – One of the five freedoms is the ability to express normal behaviour. – It’s enough to treat animals well to ensure their welfare. – The assessment of welfare is multi-factorial (or multi-criteria). 17. Which of the following statements about the defnition of animal welfare proposed by Anses in 2018 are true? Animal welfare... – applies at an individual level – relates to the welfare of groups of animals. – no longer is subject to change. – refers to the mental state of animals. 18. Among the ‘fve freedoms’, environmental freedom can be achieved through: – farming entirely outside the buildings, whatever the weather. – the presence of shelters. – comfortable rest areas. – the absence of drug treatments.

Quiz – Part 2 1. Does the welfare assessment to be carried out on a farm differ according to (several answers possible): the species? the breeding system? breeding?

• • •

Quiz

• the assessor carrying out the assessment? • the day the assessment is carried out? 2. Which of these two types of indicator should be used to assess farm animal welfare? Environment-based indicators Animal-based indicators

• •

3. Animal-based indicators... check compliance with regulations. assess animal welfare. correspond to an obligation to achieve results. corresponds to an obligation of means.

• • • •

4. Environment-based indicators are useless for assessing animal welfare: true or false? 5. Classify the following indicators in chronological order of appearance in response to a stress experienced by the animal (frst type of indicator modifed in response to a stress, then second, etc.): Behavioural indicators Health indicators Production indicators Physiological indicators

• • • •

6. Which of these sentences are true? Good production is a sign of optimum welfare. An improvement in an animal’s welfare generally leads to an improvement in production. It is the change in production rather than the production itself that makes it possible to assess the animal’s welfare. Welfare can be assessed on the basis of a single indicator if that indicator is well chosen. A multi-criteria assessment is needed to evaluate an animal’s welfare. Lying behaviour is one of the indicators used to assess the welfare of cattle.

• • • • • •

7. Which of these validation criteria corresponds to this definition: ‘Different operators must obtain the same result when carrying out the same measurement’? Repeatability Reproducibility

• •

8. Do the indicators currently used provide a better assessment of the animal’s welfare or ill-being?

145

9. Indicators can be measured... on several animals in the herd to give a representative assessment. on an animal which acts as a ‘sentinel’ for the whole herd. overall, for all the animals in the herd.

• • •

10. Within the Welfare Quality® methodology, which of the following statements is true? The principle of data integration is based mainly on measurements taken on the environment. The principle adopted does not allow for compensation between criteria. The principle adopted does not allow for any weighting between the criteria. The result of the overall assessment is binary: acceptable/not acceptable.

• • • •

11. To date, of the range of new connected tools available, what component of welfare cannot yet be measured? Absence of illness Absence of pain Absence of hunger and thirst Absence of fear and anxiety

• • • •

12. The new connected tools fulfil four main types of function. Of the following proposals, only one does not correspond to one of these four objectives. Which one? Monitor and/or distract Locating animals Administering medicines Measuring biological or behavioural parameters

• • • •

Quiz – Part 3 1. The enrichment of the living environment must be considered according to : the individual’s previous experience. age. species.

• • •

2. What is the main type of enrichment involved in adding several platforms of varying heights to a goat stall? Social enrichment Environmental enrichment Cognitive enrichment

• • •

146

Quiz

3. What type of enrichment is involved in adding manipulable materials (objects) to a park? Social enrichment Environmental enrichment Cognitive enrichment

• • •

4. What type of enrichment is meant by adding a palatable food to the ration from time to time? Social enrichment Environmental enrichment Cognitive enrichment

• • •

5. Which of the following best sums up the notion of relational practices in animals in general and farm animals in particular? Learning about the sensory world of animals Obtaining optimum growth and reproductive performance from the herd Creating a climate of trust during human interventions Using automatic recording technologies to control environmental factors in livestock buildings (ventilation, temperature)

• • • •

6. Which of the following actions do you think are best suited to fostering a positive relationship with animals? Complying with animal welfare regulations Using automatic animal behaviour recording technologies Observing animals during interventions to identify fear or pain responses From an early age, encouraging positive contact with people Using signals to warn the animal of human intervention

• • • • •

7. Which of the following four proposals summarizes the approach that should be adopted for integrated animal health management? Systematic vaccination against the most common diseases Selecting animals on the basis of their robustness Systematically carrying out a quarantine after buying an animal Taking into account from the outset all the factors that can infuence the onset of dis-

• • • •

ease (breeder, practices, animal, housing, feed etc.) 8. Which of the following health conditions are primarily affected by housing? Respiratory problems Udder infection Lameness Calf diarrhoea

• • • •

9. Which of the following three proposals summarizes the approach that should be adopted to reduce pain in animals in general, and farm animals in particular? The 3S: Delete, Substitute, Relieve The 3As: Anticipate, Improve, Stop The 3S: Stop, Simulate, Treat The 3As: Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Antibiotic therapy

• • • •

10. Which of the following criteria do you think is the most suitable for early detection of pain on a daily basis? Blood samples for assays of metabolites suggestive of pain Measurement of rectal temperature of animals once a day Measurement of average daily gain (daily weight growth) Behavioural changes (sleeping, movement etc.)

• • • •

11. Which of these examples correspond to genetic selection that would contribute to improving animal welfare? Selection of pigs with low odour compound production, to avoid castration Selection of beakless hens Selection of hornless cattle

• • •

12. What is the concept of robustness? This concept aims to select animals that can carry very heavy weights. It refers to the animal’s ability to express its production potential in a wide range of environments without compromising its physical health and welfare. Genetic selection involves balancing production criteria with functional characteristics that contribute to health and welfare.

• • •

13. Which of these statements is true? Animals like to meet new people on a journey Electric cattle prods are essential for loading cattle onto lorries.

• •

Quiz

• Compliance with the highway code helps to protect animals. • The design of transport lorries is an important factor in animal protection.

14. At the slaughterhouse: A rest period is necessary to restore physiological balance after transport. Fogging helps to regulate animal temperature during storage. Animals must have water available in storage areas. The animals have to run through the corridors to get to the stunning station more quickly.

• • • •

147

• It is compulsory to stun animals before bleeding them.

15. At the slaughterhouse: Only animal protection offcers are responsible for animal welfare. Works (saigneurs) are not responsible for animal protection. Effective stunning is a major factor in animal protection. Operators only require technical training adapted to their workstation. Knowing how to behave means respecting the animal.

• • • • •

148

Quiz

Answers Answers to the quiz (part 1) 1. All these players are involved in farm animal welfare. 2. 94% of Europeans believe that protecting the welfare of farm animals is important. So-called ‘reformist’ associations aim to improve the animal rearing conditions. 3. Running a documentation and information platform Providing scientific and technical expertise 4. Animals are sentient beings. Animals can suffer. 5. 1964. Ruth Harrison published her book denouncing intensive livestock farming. 6. Comfortable living conditions Permanent access to clean water The five freedoms are: – absence of hunger, thirst and malnutrition – no discomfort – freedom from pain, injury and illness – freedom of expression of normal behaviour – absence of fear and distress The first of the five freedoms is ‘freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition’, and one way of achieving this is to provide free access to healthy food and water. For the second freedom, comfortable shelter and rest areas must be provided. The fourth freedom can be achieved by providing the company of other conspecifics so that they can express normal behaviour, not to increase diversity. 7. Depending on the structures involved, the objectives may be limited to drafting regulatory texts or recommendations but may also involve a process of scientifc expertise on which the regulatory texts, standards and the various players involved in animal welfare (government, research, animal production sectors, non-governmental organizations) will be based. 8. All the actions listed constitute the actions targeted by the European Union in its 2016– 2020 strategic plan on animal welfare. These actions aim to ensure that animal welfare is considered from the animal’s point of view,

with an obligation to achieve results and not just to provide the means, to take account of research data that validate welfare indicators, to set up a reference centre, to provide training in welfare issues and assessment, and to provide information to consumers. 9. Animal welfare regulations cover different scales and structures at national, European and global level. 10. A sensory dimension An emotional dimension Sentience is defined by a purely sensory component (plants and animals commonly possess this sensitivity) and an emotional component (psychic basis attributed to animals). An animal’s sentience is expressed externally through its behavioural component (a factor in the expression of sentience). An animal’s emotional sentience varies according to its genetic background and past experiences (genetics and the animal’s life experience are therefore factors that vary sentience). 11. What’s new The predictable aspect Negative and/or positive valence According to the conceptual framework developed in cognitive psychology, the emotion felt is caused by the result of elementary evaluative processes that also exist in non-human animals. 12. TRUE 13. An animal’s state of welfare lasts longer than its emotions, which are ephemeral. 14. These cognitive biases persist for longer the younger the emotional experience. 15. The emotional component of sentience varies from animal to animal, depending on both the animal’s emotional experiences and its genetic characteristics. 16. One of the five freedoms is the ability to express normal behaviour. The assessment of welfare is multi-factorial (or multi-criteria). For a state of welfare, good health and appropriate treatment are necessary, but not suffcient. We must take into account the fact that animals

Quiz

are sentient beings and that their welfare depends on their perception of their environment. The assessment of welfare is multi-factorial, as shown by the fve freedoms: physiological, environmental, health, behavioural, and mental. 17. Animal welfare applies at an individual level. Animal welfare refers to the mental state of animals. The defnition proposed by Anses is based on the work of its permanent working group on animal welfare. This defnition places welfare at the level of the individual and not the group, without however minimizing the importance of the group. The defnition also takes into account the context, i.e. the environment in which the animal fnds itself, but through the animal’s perception of it rather than directly. It refers to the mental state of the animals and their perception of the environment, because good health, satisfactory production or the absence of stress are not enough to define welfare. The defnition is bound to evolve with the progress of knowledge, particularly in the feld of the mental capacities of animals, which condition their welfare. 18. Environmental freedom can be achieved through: – the presence of shelters. – comfortable rest areas. The second freedom (freedom from discomfort or environmental freedom) can be achieved through an appropriate environment, including shelter and a comfortable resting area. Animals can be reared inside or outside buildings, but in the latter case they must be able to shelter from the weather.

Answers to the quiz (part 2) 1. The assessment of animal welfare must be adapted to the situation in which the animals fnd themselves. It may therefore differ depending on the species, the farming system and the farm in which the animals are kept. However, it must give the same result regardless of the assessor and the day on which it is carried out.

149

2. Indicators based on the animals are to be preferred, as they enable us to assess how the animals perceive their conditions, whereas indicators based on the environment enable us to assess appropriate treatment, i.e. the conditions provided for the animals. 3. Animal-based indicators enable us to assess, from the animal’s point of view, how animals perceive a situation (e.g. through their behaviour) or how they feel about conditions (e.g. through their state of health). They are used to assess the animal’s welfare. They correspond to an obligation of results, unlike environmental indicators, which enable us to assess the obligation of means (in other words, Have we provided good conditions for the animals?) and to ensure compliance with regulations. 4. Environment-based indicators are essential because they complement animal-based indicators. They are used to ensure that the conditions provided allow the animal’s needs and expectations to be met a priori. In addition, they are used in cases where there are no validated animal-based indicators and, finally, they are used in the second stage of welfare improvement to identify risk factors. Once a welfare problem has been identified, to identify the cause of the problem it is necessary to gather information about the environment in the form of measurements. 5. Behavioural indicators are the earliest, i.e. generally the first to be modified in response to a constraint. It is therefore particularly important to know these indicators in order to observe them on the farm. Next come physiological indicators (which are often of little use in breeding), then production indicators, and finally health indicators. 6. Good production is a sign of optimal welfare – FALSE. If production is good, then we can say that welfare has not necessarily deteriorated. However, this does not mean that welfare is optimal. A deterioration in welfare is not necessarily enough to cause a deterioration in production. Moreover, production could be better in the case of optimal welfare. Finally, in some cases, too much production can damage the animal’s health and have negative consequences for its welfare.

150

Quiz

Animal welfare is generally a source of improved production – TRUE. The higher the level of welfare, the higher the animal’s production. It is the change in production rather than intrinsic production that makes it possible to assess the animal’s welfare – TRUE. Estimating an animal’s production and deducing its welfare is not a valid approach. An animal’s production depends above all on other factors, such as genetics. However, assessing changes in production can give an idea of the animal’s welfare. If the animal shows a signifcant drop in production, its welfare has probably declined. Welfare can be assessed on the basis of a single indicator if it is well chosen – FALSE. Welfare is multidimensional and no single indicator can assess it on its own. Assessments are always multi-criteria. A multi-criteria assessment is needed to evaluate animal welfare – TRUE. Lying behaviour is one of the indicators used to assess welfare in cattle – TRUE. It is one of the behavioural indicators to be favoured for a correct assessment of animal welfare. 7. Reproducibility. Repeatability means that the same operator should obtain the same result when carrying out the assessment several times. 8. The indicators currently used provide information mainly on deterioration in animal welfare or the absence of ill-being: presence/ absence of lesions, existence of aggressive behaviour between animals, withdrawal etc. On the other hand, there are few indicators that can be used to say that an animal is in a state of welfare and is experiencing positive emotions. 9. Indicators can be measured on several animals in the herd to give a representative assessment – TRUE. This is the case for lesions on the animal. A sample of the herd in which the lesions are observed is chosen at random. Based on this sample, the situation for the herd is assessed. Indicators can be measured on an animal which acts as a ‘sentinel’ for the whole herd – FALSE. One animal in a herd is potentially not representative of the rest of the herd.

Indicators can be measured overall, for all the animals in the herd – TRUE. This is the case for the number of aggressive interactions in the herd. 10. The system has been designed in such a way as to allow no compensation (no insuffcient principle compensated by three excellent ones), while authorizing weightings to achieve an ambitious system that is benefcial for the animal and motivating for the farmer. 11. Fear and anxiety. These cannot be measured directly. New connected tools for measuring temperature, activity and rumination can provide information on health, pain and hunger or thirst, but not yet directly on the quality of the human–animal relationship, for example. 12. Although certain treatments can be administered to humans via connected devices, this is not yet the case in veterinary medicine, although projects are currently underway. The fourth possible function, not shown here, is to control feeding.

Answers to the quiz (part 3) 1. These three factors all play a part in enriching the environment in which animals live. 2. In a goat stall, the addition of platforms of varying heights enriches the environment. 3. Adding manipulable materials (objects) to a park means enriching the environment. 4. The addition of a palatable food to the ration corresponds to cognitive enrichment. 5. Relational practices aim to reduce animal stress and improve work with the animal, through a better understanding of its sensory world, the use of appropriate communication signals and the creation of a climate of trust to facilitate human intervention. These relational practices complement traditional husbandry practices aimed at ensuring animal care operations, operational working conditions and total safety for the breeder, all of which help to ensure the welfare of the animals, professional satisfaction for the farmer and a guaranteed level of remunerative production.

Quiz

6. – Observing animals during interventions to identify fear or pain responses – From an early age, encouraging positive contact with people – Using signals to warn the animal of human intervention Taking into account the animal's sensory world and its emotional and cognitive capacities helps to create a relationship of trust between man and animal, based on a better understanding of the animal’s perceptions during human interventions and on an adjusted anticipation of the animal’s response. 7. As most diseases are multi-factorial, they cannot be effectively and sustainably controlled by a single measure alone. An integrated, multifactorial approach must be favoured. 8. All these diseases can be exacerbated by unsuitable housing (poor hygiene leading to mastitis or calf diarrhoea, discomfort causing lameness, poor ventilation causing respiratory problems). The frst step is to make a precise diagnosis of the disease, to identify whether the management or design of the dwelling is a factor in the disease, and to suggest modifcations or refer the matter to a competent adviser. Teamwork is essential. 9. Delete, Substitute, Relieve. This summarizes the approach to be adopted to reduce pain in animals as much as possible. 10. While physiological changes (temperature, hormones) may be associated with pain, they are not always present and are not easily measured on a daily basis. Zootechnical indicators are fairly reliable. However, more often than not, behavioural changes are the easiest to observe on a daily basis.

151

Any change should raise the suspicion of pain. Doubt must beneft the animal. The development of monitoring tools (temperature probe, pedometer etc.) opens up the possibility of even earlier detection of indicators that are sometimes diffcult to measure. 11. The selection of pigs that produce few odorous compounds, in order to avoid castration, and the selection of hornless cattle are examples of genetic selection that can help improve animal welfare. 12. The concept of robustness refers to the animal’s ability to express its production potential in a wide range of environments without compromising its physical health and welfare. For genetic selection, this means balancing production criteria with functional characteristics that contribute to the health and welfare of the animals. 13. The design of transport lorries is an important factor in animal protection. 14. At the slaughterhouse: – animals need a rest period to restore physiological balance after transport. – fogging helps to regulate the animal temperature during storage. – animals must have water available in storage areas. – it is compulsory to stun animals before bleeding them (unless exceptions are made for religious slaughter rituals). 15. At the slaughterhouse: – effective stunning is a major factor in animal protection. – knowing how to behave means respecting the animal.

Bibliography

Allain, C., Chanvallon, A., Clément, P., Guatteo, R. and Bareille, N. (2014) Precision breeding: scope, applications and prospects in cattle breeding. Rencontres Recherches Ruminants (RRR) 21, 3–10. Anses (2018) Avis de l’Anses relatif au ‘Bien-être animal: contexte, définition et évaluation’. Available at: https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/SABA2016SA0288.pdf (accessed 7 June 2018). AWIN (2015a) AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Horses. Available at: https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/ handle/2434/269097/384836/AWINProtocolHorses.pdf (accessed 9 June 2024). AWIN (2015b) AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Sheep. Available at: http://uni-sz.bg/truni11/ wp-content/uploads/biblioteka/file/TUNI10015667(1).pdf (accessed 9 June 2024). AWIN (2015c) AWIN Welfare Assessment Protocol for Goats. Available at: https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/ handle/2434/269102/384790/AWINProtocolGoats.pdf (accessed 9 June 2024). Boichard, D., Ducrocq, V., Croiseau, P. and Fritz, S. (2016) Genomic selection in domestic animals: principles, applications and perspectives. Comptes Rendus Biologies 339(7–8), 274–277. Available at: DOI: 10.1016/j.crvi.2016.04.007 Boissy, A., Le Neindre, P., Gastinel P.L. and Bouix, J. (2002) Genetics and behavioural adaptation in ruminants: prospects for improving animal welfare. INRAE Productions animales 15(5), 373–382. Available at: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02672887 (accessed 9 June 2024). Boissy, A., Manteuffel, G., Jensen, M.B., Moe, R.O., Spruijt, B. et al. (2007) Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare.Physiology and Behavior92(3), 375–397.DOI:10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003 Boivin, X., Bensoussan, S., L’Hotellier, N., Bignon, L., Brives, H. et al. (2012) Hommes et animaux d’élevage au travail: vers une approche pluridisciplinaire des pratiques relationnelles. INRAE Productions animales 25, 159–168. Available at: https://productions-animales.org/article/view/3205 (accessed 9 June 2024). Botreau, R., Veissier, I., Butterworth, A., Bracke, M.B.M. and Keeling, L.J. (2007a) Description of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 16, 225–228. Botreau, R., Bracke, M.B.M., Perny, P., Butterworth, A., Capdeville, J., Van Reenen, C.G. and Veissier, I. (2007b) Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: analysis of constraints. Animal 1(8), 1188–1197. DOI: 10.1017/S1751731107000547 Broom, D.M. (1986) Indicators of poor welfare. British Veterinary Journal 142(6), 524–526. DOI: 10.1016/00071935(86)90109-0 Burgat, F. (2006) Liberté et inquiétude de la vie animale. Kimé, Paris. Burgat, F. (2012) Une autre existence: La condition animale. Albin Michel, Paris. Carpenter, E. (1980) Animals and Ethics. Watkins, London. Chardon, H. and Brugère, H. (2016) La protection animale en France: de l’émergence d’un statut juridique à l’élaboration et la mise en œuvre d’une règlementation. Viandes & Produits Carnés 1. Clark, F. (2017) Cognitive enrichment and welfare: current approaches and future directions. Animal Behavior and Cognition 4(1), 52–71. DOI: 10.12966/abc.05.02.2017 153

154

Bibliography

Coignard, M., Guatteo, R., Veissier, I., Lehébel, A., Hoogveld, C., Mounier, L. and Bareille, N. (2014) Does milk yield reflect the level of welfare in dairy herds? The Veterinary Journal 199(1), 184–187. Costa, J.H.C., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. and Weary, D.M. (2016) Invited review: effects of group housing of dairy calves on behavior, cognition, performance, and health. Journal of Dairy Science 99(4), 2453–2467. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2015-10144 Courties, R. (2014) Multi-criteria evaluation of the cost/benefit ratio of sensor equipment for automated heat detection. Veterinary thesis, University of Nantes. Dantzer, R. and Mormède, P. (1979) Le stress en élevage intensif. Masson, Paris. Dawkins, M.S. (1983) La souffrance animale. Éditions du Point Vétérinaire, Maisons-Alfort, France. Dawkins M.S. (2003) Behaviour as a tool in the assessment of animal welfare. Zoology 106(4), 383–387. DOI: 10.1078/0944-2006-00122 Denis, B. (2015) Éthique des relations homme/animal. Pour une juste mesure. Édition France agricole, Paris. Destrez, A., Deiss, V., Lévy, F., Calandreau, L., Lee, C. et al. (2013) Chronic stress induces pessimistic-like judgment and learning deficits in sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 148(1), 28–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.07.016, hal-01129763 Ducrot, C., Gautret, M., Pineau, T. and Jestin, A. (2016) Scientific literature on infectious diseases affecting livestock animals, longitudinal worldwide bibliometric analysis. Veterinary Research 47(1), 42. DOI: 10.1186/s13567-015-0280-2 Duncan, I.J.H. (1979) Some studies on heart-rate and behaviour in the domestic fowl. Applied Animal Ethology 5, 294–295. Duncan, I.J.H. and Fraser, D. (1997) Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby, M.A. and Hughes, B.O. (eds) Animal Welfare. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 19–31. European Commission (2016) Special Eurobarometer 442. Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/ DocumentKy/71653 (accessed on 13 June 2018). FAWC (2003) FAWC Report on the welfare of farmed animals at slaughter or killing. Available at: https:// www.gov.uk/government/publications/fawc-report-on-the-welfare-of-farmed-animals-at-slaughteror-killing (accessed 10 June 2024). FAWC (2009) FAWC Report on farm animal welfare in Great Britain: past, present and future. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fawc-report-on-farm-animal-welfare-in-great-britainpast-present-and-future (accessed 13 June 2018). Fiorelli, C., Mouret, S. and Porcher, J. (2012) Les rationalités du travail avec les animaux d’élevage: produire, vivre ensemble et se construire. INRAE Productions animales. Special issue. Travail en élevage 25(2), 181–192. Available at: https://productions-animales.org/article/view/3207 (accessed 10 June 2024). Fraser, D. (1995) Science, values and animal welfare: exploring the inextricable connection. Animal Welfare 4, 103–117. Gleerup, K.B., Andersen, P.H., Munksgaard, L. and Forkman, B. (2015) Pain evaluation in dairy cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 171, 25–32. DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.08.023 Grant, R. (2007) Taking advantage of natural behavior improves dairy cows’ performance. Western Dairy Management Conference. Available at: http://www.wdmc.org/2007/Grant.pdf (accessed 10 June 2024). Grimard, B., de Boyer des Roches, A., Coignard, M., Lehebel, A., Chuiton, A. et al. (2019) Relationships between welfare and reproductive performance in French dairy herds. The Veterinary Journal 248, 1–7. Guatteo, R., Levionnois, O., Fournier, D. Guémené, D., Latouche, K. et al. (2011) Minimising pain in farm animals: the 3S approach – ‘suppress, subsitute, soothe’. Animal 6(8), 1261–1274. DOI: 10.1017/ S1751731112000262 Guatteo, R., Clément, P., Quiniou, R. and Bareille, N. (2017) Monitoring drops in rumination time and activity for the detection of health disorders in dairy cows. 8th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming (EC-PLF), Nantes, France. Guesgen, M.J., Beausoleil, N.J., Leach, M., Minot, E.O., Stewart, M. and Stafford, K.J. (2016) Coding and quantification of a facial expression for pain in lambs. Behavioural Processes 132, 49–56. Guichet, J.-L. (2010) Douleur animale, douleur humaine: données scientifiques, perspectives anthropologiques, questions éthiques. Editions Quæ, Versailles, France. Harrison, R. (1964) Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming Industry. Vincent Stuart Publishers Limited, London.

Bibliography

155

HMSO (1965) Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems, Cmd. 2386 (Great Britain. Parliament), H.M. Stationery Office, 1–84 [The Brambell Report]. Hostiou, N., Dedieu, B. and Baumont, R. (eds) (2012) Travail en élevage. INRAE Productions animals 25(2). Hughes, B.O. (1976) Behaviour as index of welfare. Proceedings of the 5th European Poultry Conference, Malta, pp. 1005–1018. INRAE (2009) Douleurs animales: les identifier, les comprendre, les limiter chez les animaux d’élevage. Collective expertise report. Available at: https://www6.paris.inra.fr/depe/Media/Fichier/Expertises/ Douleurs-animales/Rapport-complet-Douleurs-animales (accessed 13 June 2018). Jeangène-Vilmer, J.-B. (2011) L’éthique animale. Collection: Que sais-je? Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. Kent, J.E. and Molony, V. (2008) Guidelines for the Recognition and Assessment of Animal Pain. Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies. Available at: https://www.vet.ed.ac.uk/animalpain/ (accessed 10 June 2024). Krohn, C.C., Jago, J. G. and Boivin, X. (2001) The effect of early handling on the socialisation of young calves to humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74(2), 121–133. Langford, D.J., Bailey, A.L., Chanda, M.L., Clarke, S.E., Drummond, T.E. et al. (2010) Coding of facial expressions of pain in the laboratory mouse. Nature Methods 7, 447–449. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.1455 Larrère, C. and Larrère, R. (1997) Le contrat domestique. Le Courrier de l’environnement de l’INRA, Paris. Institut national de la recherche agronomique. Délégation permanente à l’environnement 30(30), 5–17 (hal-01207044). Le Neindre, P., Guatteo, R., Guémené, D., Guichet, J.-L., Latouche, K. et al. (eds) (2009) Douleurs animales: les identifier, les comprendre, les limiter chez les animaux d’élevage. Expertise scientifique collective, synthèse du rapport. INRA. Available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02990906/ document (accessed 10 June 2024). Le Neindre, P., Bernard, E., Boissy, A., Boivin, X., Calendreau, L. et al. (2017) Animal consciousness. EFSA supporting publication, EN-1196. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017. EN-1196/epdf (accessed 13 June 2018). Le Roy, P., Ducos, A. and Phocas, F. (2019) What performance for tomorrow’s animals? Selection objectives and methods. INRAE Productions animales 32(2), 233–246. Lensink, J., Fernandez, X., Boivin, X., Pradel, P., Le Neindre, P. and Veissier, I. (2000) The impact of gentle contacts on ease of handling, welfare, and growth of calves and quality of veal meat. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1219–1226. Mandel, R., Whay, H.R., Klement, E. and Nicol, C.J. (2016) Invited review: Environmental enrichment of dairy cows and calves in indoor housing. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 1695–1715. DOI: 10.3168/ jds.2015-9875 Mendl, M., Burman, O.H.P. and Paul, E.S. (2010) An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277, 2895–2904. Milhaud, C. (2007) Rapport sur l’utilisation du néologisme “bientraitance” à propos de la protection des animaux. Académie vétérinaire de France. Available at: http://academieveterinaire.free.fr/rapports/ bientraitance.pdf (accessed 2 August 2024). Mormède, P. (2015) Contribution of genetics to farm animal robustness and welfare. Bulletin des groupements techniques vétérinaires 77, 43–48. Mormède, P. and Foury, A. (2009) Robustness and sustainable production: physiopathological and molecular hypotheses. Bulletin de l’Académie vétérinaire de France 162(4–5), 335–339. Available at: https:// hal.inrae.fr/hal-02665620 (accessed 10 June 2024). Mormède, P., Boisseau-Sowinski, L., Chiron, J., Diederich, C., Eddison, J. et al. (2018) Animal welfare: context, definition, assessment. INRAE Productions animales 31, 145–162, DOI: 10.20870/productionsanimales.2018.31.2.2299 Neave, H.W., Daros, R.R., Costa, J.H.C., von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. and Weary, D.M. (2013) Pain and pessimism: dairy calves exhibit negative judgement bias following hot-iron disbudding. PLOS ONE 9(4), e96135. Newberry, R.C. (1995) Environmental enrichment: increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 44, 229–243. DOI: 10.1016/0168-1591(95)00616-Z Orgeur, P., Mavric, N., Yvore, P., Bernard, S., Nowak, R., Schaal, B. and Levy, F. (1998) Artifical weaning in sheep: consequences on behavioural, hormonal, and immuno-pathological indicators of welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Sciences (58), 87–103. Peyraud, J.-L., Aubin, J., Barbier, M., Baumont, R., Berri, C. et al. (2019) What science for tomorrow’s livestock farming? Une réflexion prospective menée à l’INRA. INRAE Productions animales 32(2), 323–338. DOI: 10.20870/productions-animales.2019.32.2.2591 Phocas, F. (2020) Defining selection objectives. Génétique des animaux d'élevage. Diversité et adaptation dans un monde changeant. editions Quæ, Versailles, France.

156

Bibliography

Phocas, F., Belloc, C., Bidanel, J., Delaby, L., Dourmad, J.-Y. et al. (2017) Which animal genetic improvement programmes for agro-ecological farming systems? INRAE Productions animales 30(1), 31–46. Available at: https://productions-animales.org/article/view/2232 (accessed 10 June 2024). Prunier, A., Mounier, L., Le Neindre, P., Leterrier, C., Mormède, P. et al. (2013) Identifying and monitoring pain in farm animals: a review. Animal 7(6), 998–1010. Available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ hal-01129733 (accessed 10 June 2024). Regan, T. (2013) Animal Rights (trans. Enrique Utria). Editions Hermann, Paris (translation of The Case for Animal Rights, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 2004). Robert-Granié, C., Legarra, A. and Ducrocq, V. (2011) Basic principles of genomic selection. INRAE Productions animales 24(4), 331–340. Russell, W.M.S. and Burch R.L. (1959) The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Methuen, London. Scherer, K., Schorr, A. and Johnstone, T. (2001) Appraisal Processes in Emotion:Theory, Methods, Research. Oxford University Press. Seegers, H., Bareille, N., Guatteo, R., Joly, A., Chauvin, A. et al. (2013) Epidemiology and levers for controlling the health of dairy cattle herds: a monographic approach for seven major diseases. INRAE Productions animales 26(2), 157–176. DOI: 10.20870/productions-animales.2013.26.2.3145 Selye, H. (1974) Stress without Distress. J.B. Lippincott, Philadelphia. Singer, P. (2012) Animal Liberation (trans. Louise Rousselle and David Olivier). Petite Bibliothèque Payot (1st edn Grasset, 1993). Spinka, M., Dembele, I., Panamá, J. and Stìhulová, I. (2005) Lame dairy cows have shorter avoidance distances. 39th International Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology, Sagamihara, Japan. Sprecher, D.J., Hostetler, D.E. and Kaneene, J.B. (1997) A lameness scoring system that uses posture and gait to predict dairy cattle reproductive performance. Theriogenology 47, 1179–1187. Stafford, K.J. and, Mellor, D.J. (2005) Dehorning and disbudding distress and its alleviation in calves. The Veterinary Journal 169(3), 337–349. Tallet, C., Sy, K., Prunier, A., Nowak, R., Boissy A. et al. (2014) Behavioural and physiological reactions of piglets to gentle tactile interactions vary according to their previous experience with humans. Livestock Science 167, 331–341. Available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01129853/file/postprint_2 (accessed 10 June 2024). Terlouw, C. (2018) Pre-slaughter and slaughter period: procedures, stress, animal welfare and meat qualities. La Chaîne de la viande bovine. Production, transformation, valorisation et consommation, Lavoisier Tec & Doc. Available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02264358 (accessed 10 June 2024). Terlouw, E.M.C., Ducreux, B. and Bourguet, C. (2021a) Neurobiological and physiological particularities of different slaughter techniques. Slaughter with and without stunning: consciousness and induction of unconsciousness (part 1). Viandes & Produits carnés (VPC-2021-3725). Terlouw, E.M.C., Ducreux, B. and Bourguet, C. (2021b) Specificities of consciousness and unconsciousness indicators according to slaughter methods. Slaughter with and without stunning: practical evaluation of unconsciousness (part 2). Viandes & Produits carnés (VPC-2021-3726). Veissier, I. and Boissy, A. (2000) Animal welfare: anthropomorphic projection or biological reality? Rencontres Recherches Ruminants 7, 51–53. Veissier, I., Sarignac, C. and Capdeville, J. (1999) Les méthodes d’appréciation du bien-être des animaux d’élevage. INRAE Productions animales 12(2), 113–121. Veissier, I., Kling-Eveillard, F., Mialon, M.M., Silberberg, M., De Boyer des Roches, A. et al. (2019) Precision farming and welfare in animal husbandry: will the digital revolution in agriculture enable the needs of animals and farmers to be taken into account? INRAE Productions animales 32, 281–290. DOI: 10.20870/productions-animales.2019.32.2.2478 Verdon, M. and Rault, J.-L. (2018) Aggression in group housed sows and fattening pigs. In: Špinka, M. (ed.) Advances in Pig Welfare. Woodhead Publishing, pp. 235–260. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-1010129.00006-X Vet IN Tech Collective (2018) Animal e-health: finding out more about connected objects. White paper no. 2. Welfare Quality® (2009a) Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for cattle. Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands. Available at: http://www.welfarequality.net/media/1088/cattle_protocol_ without_veal_calves.pdf (accessed 10 June 2024).

Bibliography

157

Welfare Quality® (2009b) Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for pigs (sows and piglets, growing and finishing pigs). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands. Available at: http://www. welfarequality.net/media/1018/pig_protocol.pdf (accessed 10 June 2024). Welfare Quality® (2009c) Welfare Quality®assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands. Available at: http://www.welfarequality.net/ media/1293/poultry-protocol-watermark-6-2-2020.pdf (accessed 10 June 2024). Wemelsfelder, F. (2007) How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative behaviour assessment. Animal Welfare 16, 25–31. Whay, H.R. (2007) The journey to animal welfare improvement. Animal Welfare 16(2), 117–122.

Websites Animal Welfare Label Association: http://www.etiquettebienetreanimal.fr/ (accessed 10 June 2024) ConsoGlobe: https://www.consoglobe.com/transport-animaux-cg (accessed 10 June 2024) European Community: Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/ TXT/?uri=celex:32005R0001 (accessed 15 February 2021) European Community: Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009: 303:0001:0030:FR:PDF (accessed 15 February 2021) Meat Institute: http://www.animalhandling.org/sites/default/files/forms/animal-handling-guidelines-Nov32017. pdf (accessed 10 June 2024) Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la souverainté Alimentaire: https://agriculture.gouv.fr/la-protectiondes-animaux-labattoir (accessed 15 February 2021) Welfare Quality® http://www.welfarequalitynetwork.net/en-us/home/ (accessed 10 June 2024)

Index

Note: The page numbers in italics and bold represents fgures and tables respectively.

A adrenal cortex 26 agonistic behaviour indicator 69 animal-based indicators 52, 53, 54, 94 animal activity, changes 58–9 behavioural changes 58–60, 61 early indicator 57–8 health 63–4 individual/herd level, measure 57 limbs 58 measurement results 64 neuroendocrine activation 61 physiological functions 60–1, 62 production changes 62, 62–3 types 57, 58 animal–human interactions assessing relationship 109–10 improving relationship genetics 110–12 human behaviour, training 112–13 organizing work 113 livestock farming 106–7 perceptions 108–9 relations 106, 107–8 animal husbandry 19, 50, 51 animal sentience anthropomorphic interpretations 22 broilers/pigs, painful practices 22 emotional experience 23 sentience emotion 26 negative emotion 28

psychological dimension 25–8 sensory dimension 24–5, 25 animal welfare animal-friendly products 1 animal protection policy 1 Anses defnition 40–3 components 40 defnitions adapt environment 38, 39 emotions 38, 40 human welfare 40–1 individual and environment, harmony 38 operational 43–5 physical health 37 freedoms 44, 45 history European/French regulations development 11 philosophical tradition 9–11 livestock farming professionals 2 one welfare 1 regulations 47 treatment 42 animal welfare indicators (AWIN) 45 anti-speciesist approach 9 assessment protocols label association 72 Welfare Quality® 73

B breeding diseases 129 Bureau for Animal Protection (BPA) 18 159

160

C Conseil national d’orientation de la politique sanitaire animale et végétale (CNOPSAV) 18

D deontologism 9, 14 deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) 127 departmental directorates for the protection of populations (DDPP) 98 directorate-general for food (DGAL) 18

E Ebene® protocols 81 e-health 86 emotional reactions, animal welfare calves dehorning stress 33 cognitive bias 31–4 consciousness in animals 29 elementary cognitive processes 30 emotional sentience 28 evaluation bias, sheep stress 35 genetic variability 34–7, 36 judgement and learning biases 30–1, 32 European/French regulations animal protection law 11 animals, living conditions 20 Council of Europe 12–15, 17 directives 17, 21 EU 15–17, 17 European structures 15 French institutions 18 French law 11 national regulations 17–19, 20 OIE 19–22

F farm animal welfare council (FAWC) 50 farms ethical issues, connected objects 91–4 tools 86 absence of discomfort 88 connected tools 87 fve freedoms 88 hunger/thirst/malnutrition, freedom 88 image-analysis systems 90 monitoring dairy cows 86 natural behaviour 90–1 pain/injury/illness, freedom 88–90 poultry farming 87 farm welfare labelling schemes 49 fve freedoms principle 49 French livestock farming 4

Index

G genetics basis of selection 127–8 bias of selection 127–8 disturbances for animals 126–8 functional characteristics 130–2 solution to problems 132 zootechnical performance, selection schemes 129–30 genomic selection 132

I indicators absence of hunger criterion 51 absence of lesions 51 animal 53 assessment models 94, 95 categories 51 deterioration in welfare 54 environment 52–3, 55, 94 herd level, assessing animal 55–6 subjective emotional experiences 56 validation feasibility 67–8 measurement method 68 Quality® protocol 65 reproducibility 66–7 sentience/suitability 66 specifcity 65–6 Welfare Quality® protocol 51 information and communication technologies (ICT) 86 Institut Technique de l’Aviculture (Itavi) 81 integrated health management disease prevention 114 example 116–18, 117 health risks, livestock farming 114 parameters 115 integration process agonistic behaviour indicator 69 herd scores 72–3 individual scores 70–1, 70–2 lameness score indicator 69 types 69–70

L lameness score indicator 69 livestock farming 47, 96, 97

M medullary adrenal gland 26 mixed crop-livestock farming 4

Index

N national reference centre for animal welfare (CNR BEA) 7

O one welfare 140–1

P pain management facial expressions 120 farm animals 119–22 grid, cattle 121, 122 livestock farming 118–19, 119 pain 118 3s principle, cattle dehorning 123–6 physical environment 98 free-range farming 98–9 housing conditions 98 housing system 99–101 regulatory standards 98 physical/social environment animal needs/expectations 97–8 enrichment 106 risk factors 96

R reformism/welfarism 10 reformist/welfarist associations 5 resource-based indicators 51 royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals (RSCPA) 5

S social animals dominance–subordination relationships 101 group mixing 102–3 social separation 103 weaning/separation, dam 103 societal expectations, animal welfare animal protection groups 5–7

animal welfare awareness 7–8 consumers 2–3 egg production methods/egg purchases, French 6 French lifestyles/types of farming 4 societal demand, evolution 3–5 zootechnics. animal productivity 5 Société protectrice des animaux (SPA) 5

T transport and slaughter conditions animal protection 132–3 assessment of animal protection 136 controls sources, stress/pain equipment functionality 138–9 limiting fatigue 136 operator training 139–40 post mortem muscle metabolism 136 principles 137 recognizing sentient nature 137–8 main stages 133–4 stress/pain 134–6

W welfare improvement loop stages evaluating measures 85 factors causing degradation 83–4 implement corrective actions 84–5 initial assessment 83 Welfare Quality® protocol animal protection associations 74 AWIN protocols 80 Boviwell protocol 81 calculating scores 75–7 dairy cows 76 dairy farm 79 Ebene® evaluation 82, 82 four freedoms 75 integration process 76 livestock farming 78–80 validated tools 74

161