The United States has traditionally lagged behind Europe in the adoption of voluntary or legislated standards for the care and treatment of animals on farms. US federal legislation of farm animal practices is minimal, confined to aspects of livestock transport and slaughter. Although some of the livestock and poultry producer (commodity) groups wrote guidelines, codes of practice, or statements regarding the humane treatment of animals in the 1980s, these were usually very general statements of current industry practice, developed with little consultation with independent experts and involving no mechanism for encouraging or ensuring compliance by producers. However, this has changed dramatically in the last few years, with an increasing trend among US retailers to require their suppliers to adopt minimum animal welfare standards. The major chain restaurants and supermarkets are working through their trade organisations, the National Council of Chain Restaurants and the Food Marketing Institute respectively, and with the commodity groups, to develop a uniform set of standards and a national auditing program. Standards and auditing programs have already been approved for dairy cattle, laying hens and meat chickens, and for slaughter, including ritual slaughter (kosher and halal). The process of setting auditable standards is complicated by the lack of legislative underpinning, the scope of the auditing that will be required because of US farm sizes and the large distances between farms, and the varying levels of expertise of potential auditors. For these reasons, ‘engineering-based’ auditing criteria that are relatively easy to measure and to standardise are more common. There are both strengths and potential weaknesses of retail-driven rather than legislatively driven animal welfare standards. Regardless, the recent changes in the US possibly pave the way for increasing dialogue between Europe and the US on farm animal welfare issues.

Theoretical models are presented of the effects of space, facilities and group size on the behaviour of chickens at high stocking densities, with relevance for all animals. The appropriateness of each model is supported by published data, although such data are scant for some important variables. Freedom of movement is analysed by taking the area of a hen as 475 cm2 and finding the number of free bird spaces left at different space allowances. This provides support for current recommendations of a maximum of seven laying hens per m2 on deep litter, but suggests that a maximum for broilers of 34 kg/m2 unacceptably restricts freedom of movement. In cages, freedom of movement increases with space allowance per hen, and, for a given space allowance, with cage and group size. Nesting behaviour is analysed for synchrony, which decreases with group size. Perching and feeding are often synchronous and the space needed for these is determined by body width. Recommendations are derived for hens in furnished cages. The main part of the cage should be as large as possible; an absolute minimum of 600 cm2 per bird is suggested, but 675 cm2 per bird is probably the minimum practical. Perch and feeder space should be provided at 14 cm or more per bird, with a possible derogation for light hybrids to 12 cm. The number of nest spaces needed varies with the number of birds, with nest spaces being 300 cm2 each. These recommendations sum to a minimum of 800 cm2 per bird for groups of eight or more, 850 cm2 for groups of four to seven, and 900 cm2 for groups of three or fewer, plus litter area. Crowding is primarily caused by limited space allowance, but for a given space allowance it is worse in small enclosures and groups.

Boredom, while often casually attributed to non-human animals by both laypeople and scientists, has received little empirical study in this context. It is sometimes dismissed by others as anthropomorphic or a trivial concern in comparison to other welfare problems faced in captivity. Recent work on human boredom, however, has led to evidence that, far from being trivial, it can have serious consequences in the form of risky behaviour and reduced physical as well as mental health, and potentially contributes to social problems. Research on mink, supported by older literature on farm and laboratory animals, suggests that monotonous, stimulus-poor environments can induce an increased motivation for diverse stimuli, consistent with the experience of boredom. This experience is likely to be aversive and may lead to problems such as depression-like states or self-injurious behaviour if not addressed. Boredom should therefore be treated as an important welfare concern. Research is needed to find practical ways of identifying this state and to determine how widespread it is across species and which animals are most at risk. Possible ways of alleviating or avoiding this problem include offering animals in our care a choice in the level of stimulation they experience and opportunities to experience appropriate cognitive challenge.

Potential biochemical indicators of long-term undernutrition in cattle, which could be used objectively, reliably and routinely, were investigated by evaluating frequently analysed metabolites in cattle. In an initial study, a meta-regression of literature data for glucose, urea, non-esterifed fatty acids (NEFA) and β-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) against body condition score (BCS), body weight (BW) and its change (BWC) was conducted. The credible intervals of the gradients included zero for all regressions, showing that there were no significant relationships between any of the blood metabolites and BCS, BW or BWC across the 13 included studies. In a second study, fresh field samples from nine herds of adequately-nourished suckler cows and stored samples from two herds of suckler cows, which had experienced severe undernutrition, were analysed for serum albumin, total protein, urea, BHB, NEFA, creatinine, fructosamine and globulin. Positive regressions with BCS were obtained for albumin and creatinine, and a negative regression with fructosamine/albumin ratio. With the threshold for detecting undernutrition set at ≥ 10.75 μmol g–1, the fructosamine/albumin ratio gave sensitivity and specif city of 100%. Therefore, it is probably necessary to combine several blood measures to obtain a valid assessment of the nutritional state of ruminants, and we advise against the use of a single plasma metabolite concentration in assessing the nutritional state and welfare of individual cows.

Social Network Analysis (SNA) enables the fine scale of animal sociality and population structure to be quantified. SNA is widely applied to questions relating to behavioural ecology but has seen little use in the application to zoo animal management, despite its clear potential. Investment in social bonds between individuals positively affects health status, welfare state, long-term fitness and lifetime reproductive output. Such positive affective states can be maintained consistently within captive situations if more information is known about the social preferences of the individuals that are kept. Disruption to social bonds may lead to impoverished welfare and stress to individuals which have seen their social support compromised. The patterning of social relationships between individuals also influences how space is utilised and how animals interact with resources provided for them. With more detailed knowledge of the social structure of a group or population, social groupings (for example, for captive breeding) can be specifically designed to minimise social stress. Likewise, enhancing the chances of successful reproduction can be achieved if we understand the role that each individual within a network plays and how these roles may impact on the behaviour of others. This paper discusses key aspects of SNA applicable to zoo-based researchers wishing to investigate the social lives of zoo animals. We present a review of how SNA can be used to assess social behaviour and highlight directions for future research. Our aim is to stimulate new research to ultimately improve our understanding of reproductive success, decision-making, group leadership, animal health and enclosure use. We conclude that what can be learned about the dynamics of social zoo-housed species using SNA can directly impact on husbandry decisions and help underpin excellent standards of animal welfare.

The preferences of broiler and layer strains of fowl for four different intensities of incandescent luminaire (6, 20, 60 and 200 lux; Osram, 60W, pearl) were tested at 2 and 6 weeks of age. With each strain, four replicates of 12 birds were each allowed to move freely between four compartments illuminated continuously at the different intensities for 6 days. The distribution of light intensities among the compartments was changed daily. After 2 days of conditioning, the birds’ location and behaviour were recorded once every 15min over 23h on each of the remaining 4 days. The other hour was devoted to changing light intensities and refilling the feeders and drinkers. Six, mutually exclusive behaviours were defined: resting, perching, feeding, drinking, litter-directed activity and locomotion.

With both strains, most time was spent in the brightest (200 lux) environment at 2 weeks of age. but in the dimmest (6 lux) at 6 weeks. This apparent change in preference was associated only with the two behaviours which took up most time, resting and perching, whereas the highest intensity was consistently preferred for all other behaviours. Older birds thus preferred to be in dim light when they were relatively inactive.

The finding that older birds prefer to spend much of their time in a light environment of < 10 lux intensity, depending on behaviour, is contrary to current recommendations that minimum light intensities for broilers and laying hens should be increased to as much as 20 lux. Some variation in the spatial or temporal distribution of ambient light intensity, to provide both dimly (< 10 lux) and brightly (eg > 50 lux) lit environments, might benefit the welfare of older poultry, although further work is needed to establish their optimal light environment.

A recent FAWC report introduced ‘a life worth living’ as a useful concept in farm animal welfare discussions and policy. But what does this concept mean? And is it a useful one? This paper extends FAWC's approach in several ways. It firstly provides an account of the concept of a life worth living in more detail, in relation to current animal welfare thinking, such as experiences and quality of life. It then describes how the concept might be applied in animal welfare management decisions and in setting standards for regulations and Farm Assurance schemes. The paper identifies several advantages to the concept: it is animal-based, intuitively understandable, and has direct prescriptive force in decision-making. But the concept also has certain limitations, especially that it is potentially complex and subjective and that it cannot include all ethically relevant concerns about farm animal welfare. Nevertheless, the paper concludes that the concept may become a useful addition to welfare dialogue, and finishes by identifying the core areas where further work is necessary.

To ensure that farm animal welfare issues are identified and addressed appropriately, there is a need for robust on-farm welfare assessment protocols. This paper describes the development of a comprehensive welfare assessment protocol for dairy goats (Capra hircus) and its testing on 30 commercial dairy goat farms in Norway. The protocol combines animal-based welfare indicators with measures of husbandry provisions to enable the identification of welfare problems and challenges inherent to the production system. The study also includes a first report of group level qualitative behavioural assessments (QBA) of goats. Due to reliability and validity issues related to behavioural assessments of human-animal interactions, indices of stockperson attitudes were incorporated as a complementary assessment of stockmanship. The most prevalent physical conditions observed were ocular discharge, skin lesions, udder asymmetry, calluses on knees and hocks, and overgrown claws. Moreover, fear levels appeared to be of particular concern in some herds. Significant associations were found between qualitative behavioural assessments and measures of health and stockmanship. Floor type was associated with four animal-based welfare outcomes. Reliability and validity of goat welfare indicators need to be further tested, and intervention plans and thresholds need to be determined so that advice can be tailored to the specific problems identified on each farm. We conclude that the protocol can work as a tool to identify welfare issues in dairy goat herds, and that this study may be a valuable contribution to the development of a much-needed welfare assessment protocol for dairy goats.

Bodily contact with water is a novel and aversive experience for broiler chickens, and this has been used when designing the Latency to Lie (LTL) test. The original testing procedure, in which the birds are tested in groups, involves a certain settling period, which makes the test time-consuming to carry out on commercial broiler farms. Our modifications of the LTL test for on-farm use mean that a) the birds are tested individually without visual contact with other birds; and b) the water tub is already filled with water when the birds are placed in it. The results from the LTL tests can then be compared with the scores achieved for each individual bird on the commonly used ‘gait scoring’ procedure. At 14 farms participating in a larger survey, we used three birds of each gait score from 0 to 4 (when available) for LTL testing. The time spent standing before making the first attempt to lie down was recorded. The results show a clear negative correlation (r = -0.86, P < 0.001) between time spent standing and gait score. The mean LTL values for the different gait scores were all significantly (P < 0.01) different. There was no significant difference in LTL results between flocks. The method described appears to be well suited for on-farm use. If further developed, it could become a useful tool in monitoring programmes for the ongoing efforts aiming at decreasing the levels of leg weakness in modern broiler production.

Motivation is a central concept for animal welfare; it has inspired methodological breakthroughs and generated a wealth of crucial empirical work. As the field develops beyond its original mandate to alleviate the suffering of animals in intensive farming systems, the assumptions behind the current models of motivation may warrant closer scrutiny. In this paper, I examine some of the complexities of studying motivation — for example, that what an animal wants can depend on its welfare and that, through genetic selection and housing choices, we can modify what an animal finds to be rewarding versus punishing. The central theme of this paper is, therefore, that we cannot just ask the animals under our care (or even in the wild) what they want and assume that we will receive unadulterated answers, free from human influence. While asking questions about animal motivation with empirical research is invaluable and necessary, our models drive our research questions, methodologies, and results’ interpretation. When the models we employ remain implicit (eg the only motivation questions worth asking are those that could be implemented within the current housing systems), they have ability to stifle progress in understanding animal welfare. Thus, in addition to the empirical work, we also need to expose and evaluate the models that drive the research. Making the models explicit will facilitate our ability to identify their areas of silence, assess their strengths and potential limitations, as well as examine how they conceptualise the relationship between motivation and animal welfare. I end with a discussion of the implications of a few relevant models, both implicit and explicit, noting how such consideration reveals exciting areas for future work, including, for example, research on the motivation to make choices and the motivation to learn.

Throughout the world, male chicks from layer breeds are killed just after hatching, as they are not profitable as regards the production of meat. The Dutch and European parliaments have insisted on research into possible alternatives to the killing of day-old chicks. In the present study we have investigated Dutch public opinion on the acceptability of these alternatives by means of discussions in so-called focus groups and via a public survey through computer-aided personal interviews (CAPI). To inform the participants about the subject, a film was made to explain the current practice and introduce a number of technological alternatives that would prevent development of male embryos, as well as the possibility of creating a ‘dual-purpose chicken’ that would allow male chicks to be used for meat production. The topics addressed in the study included the willingness of participants to pay a premium for eggs and chicken meat, were it necessary to prevent killing of male chicks. Focus-group discussions showed that many participants were unaware of the current practice of killing male chicks, and were shocked by this practice. However, once informed, the participants seemed able to take various considerations into account and rank the alternatives. The alternatives ‘looking into the fresh egg (to determine sex of the egg and not incubate male eggs)’, and ‘dual-purpose chickens’ scored best out of all the possible alternatives, and higher than maintaining the current practice. ‘Influencing the laying hens such that they produce fewer male eggs’ scored the same as maintaining the current practice. The use of ‘genetic modification to facilitate looking into the fresh egg’ scored only slightly lower than maintaining the current practice. Alternatives whereby developing male embryos die, or are killed, scored lower than maintaining the current practice.

Veterinary visits are known to be stressful for many dogs. The aim of this study was to assess dog welfare in the waiting room of the veterinary clinic through a multi-modal, non-invasive approach. Forty-five dogs were each videoed for 3 min in the waiting room of a veterinary clinic where they went for a scheduled visit. The welfare of each dog was assessed using a thorough video analysis and two overall evaluations (low, medium and high stress); one performed by a veterinary behaviourist and one by the dog's owner. Two-thirds of dogs spent more than 20% of the time displaying at least one indicator of stress, and 53.3% showed four or more behavioural signs of stress. Assessments of stress by the behaviourist indicated that level of stress in the waiting room was high in 28.9% of cases. The agreement between owners’ and behaviourist's overall evaluations was quite low. The behaviourist's evaluations were strongly correlated with the time spent by dogs showing signs of stress and moderately correlated with the number of displayed signs, whilst owners’ evaluations were not closely correlated to those factors. Dogs rated as highly stressed by the behaviourist were more prone to display resistance (halting, refusing to budge) when moving from the waiting room to the consultation room. The results of this pilot study support the idea that the welfare of dogs in the veterinary waiting room is often impaired, and that owners are unable to accurately assess stress in their dogs in such situations.

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

This study explored the influence of five toys (squeaky ball, non-squeaky ball, Nylabone chew, tug rope and Boomer ball) on the behaviour of 32 adult dogs housed in a rescue shelter. The dogs were exposed to each toy separately for six days, with an intervening period of one day between toys. The dogs' location in their kennels (front or back), activity (moving, standing, sitting or resting) and vocalisation (barking, quiet or other) were recorded over 4 h at 10 min intervals on Days 1, 3 and 5 during a control condition (no toy present) and during five experimental (toy) conditions. Whether or not the dogs were observed playing with the toys during the experimental conditions was also recorded. The dogs spent relatively little (<8%) of the overall observation time playing with the toys. The toys elicited varying degrees of interest, with dogs showing a preference for the Nylabone chew over the other toys. The dogs' interest in the toys waned over time, but the speed of habituation to the Nylabone chew was slower than to any of the other toys. The dogs' activity was significantly related to toy condition: dogs spent more time moving and less time standing during the Nylabone chew, squeaky ball and non-squeaky ball conditions than during any of the other conditions. It is suggested that the welfare of kennelled dogs may be slightly enhanced by the addition of suitable toys to their kennels. It is advised, however, that toys are rotated to encourage exploration and reduce habituation. The provision of other forms of environmental enrichment is also recommended.

The objective of this study was to evaluate conditions during transport and their effects on welfare and carcase bruising of beef cattle in Uruguay, a country with an extensive, pasture-based, production system. Twelve abattoirs were visited periodically during two years (2002-2003) and 448 trucks were inspected on arrival. The state of vehicle maintenance was deemed ‘unacceptable’ for the transport of animals in 16.5 (± 3.2)% of cases and most of the vehicles (99.1 [± 0.1]%) had a ‘guillotine-type’ door at the rear end. Both characteristics showed a significant association with the presence of carcase bruising. No overall significant difference was found with the year of vehicle manufacture (24.6 [± 0.2]% before 1990), the presence of rollers bars in 51.3 (± 0.1)% of the trucks on one or both sides of the doors, and the working experience of the men who transported the cattle (> 10 years). The average distance travelled with the animals loaded onto trucks was 240 (± 9) km and the mean journey length was 305 (± 7) min (5 h). A statistically significant effect of the distance travelled and the state of the roads on the occurrence of bruising was found. The use of devices to force animals to move, such as: electric prod (75%), sticks (3%), loud shouts (40%) and a combination of all of the above were positively correlated with bruising. After slaughter, carcase bruising was identified, quantified, and classified into three degrees of muscle injury. From 15,168 beef cattle observed, 60.0% (9,106) had at least one injury. Of the injured carcases, 33.1% (3,015) had one bruise, 25.1% (2,289) had two bruises, 16.2% (1,474) had three bruises and 25.6% (2,328) four or more bruises. Transporting animals in a humane fashion will reduce the amount of bruising on carcases, thereby increasing both the welfare of beef cattle and the profitability of the beef industry in Uruguay.

Social interactions between individuals, such as co-operation and competition, are key factors in evolution by natural selection. As a consequence, evolutionary biologists have developed extensive theories to understand the consequences of social interactions for response to natural selection. Current genetic improvement programmes in animal husbandry, in contrast, largely ignore the implications of social interactions for the design of breeding programmes. Recently, we have developed theoretical and empirical tools to quantify the magnitude of heritable social effects, ie the heritable effects that animals have on their group mates’ traits, in livestock populations, and to utilise those effects in genetic improvement programmes. Results in commercial populations of pigs and laying hens indicate large heritable social effects, and the potential to substantially increase responses to selection in traits affected by social interactions. In pigs, including social effects into the breeding programme affected aggressive behaviour, both at mixing and in stable groups, indicating changes in the way dominance relationships are established and in aggressiveness. In laying hens, we applied selection between kin-groups to reduce mortality due to cannibalistic pecking. This resulted in a considerable difference in mortality between the low mortality line and the unselected control line in the first generation (20 vs 30%). Furthermore, changes in behavioural and neurobiological responses to stress were detected in the low mortality line, pointing to reduced fearfulness and stress sensitivity. These first results indicate that including social effects into breeding programmes is a promising way to reduce negative social interactions in farm animals, and possibly to also increase positive social interactions, by breeding animals with better social skills.

Forty-eight Large White x Landrace multiparous sows were mixed into twelve groups of four animals after their piglets were weaned. These groups were defined as static, with no animals being added to or removed from the groups after their formation. Aggressive and submissive behaviours were recorded continuously for 9 h after the sows were mixed, and the sows were assigned high or low social status on the basis of their relative aggressiveness and success in aggressive interactions. After five weeks, each static group was mixed into a dynamic group of 40 ±2 sows for an 11-week period. Three static groups (ie 12 animals) at a time were added to the dynamic group at three-week intervals; the same number of animals was removed at these time-points in order to maintain the group number at 40 ± 2. Injury levels increased significantly with the transition from static groups to the dynamic group (P < 0.001). Sows with low social status had lower bodyweights (P < 0.001) and higher injury levels one week after mixing into static and dynamic groups (P < 0.01). Social status did not significantly affect salivary Cortisol levels. Sows with low social status were positioned lower in the feed order, determined using an electronic feeder (P < 0.001), and tended to be displaced from the feeder queue more often (P < 0.1) in the dynamic group. Sows with low social status were also displaced from the drinker more often than highranking sows in the dynamic group (P < 0.01). This may have led to the greater frequency of drinking behaviour shown by low-ranking sows (P < 0.05). Sows with low social status were observed less often in the kennel areas than were the high-ranking sows in the dynamic group (P < 0.05), suggesting that they were denied access to the prime lying areas. The results suggest that the welfare of sows is negatively affected by low social status in both small static and large dynamic groups.

Self-directed behaviours (SDBs) are said to be indicative of negative emotions. The present study focused on chimpanzees’ SDBs during cognitive experiments in order to investigate how each chimpanzee reacted to his or her errors and to changes in task difficulty. We recorded and analysed the behaviour of six chimpanzees during cognitive experiments at the Primate Research Institute, Kyoto University, in Japan. We compared the rate of SDBs after correct trials versus incorrect trials, and in easy tasks versus difficult tasks. Our results suggest that the chimpanzees’ reactions to making an error and the degree of difficulty of the task varied depending on the individual. Three out of the six chimpanzees exhibited higher rates of SDBs after incorrect trials than after correct trials, and in difficult tasks than in easy tasks whilst the other three did not. This finding suggests that chimpanzees may differ in the degree to which they exhibit internal conflict and we should carefully assess subjective evaluations of task situations; taking these differences into consideration when conducting experimental research in chimpanzees.

Some supporters of religious slaughter methods claim that efficiency of bleed-out is adversely affected by stunning. Our previous study carried out in sheep at an abattoir comparing the Muslim method of slaughter without stunning with pre-slaughter stunning using a captive bolt or by electrical methods concluded that bleed-out is not adversely affected by stunning, nor improved by a neck cut without stunning. In this paper, a similar study carried out in cattle is reported. In this study, captive bolt stunning followed by neck cutting was compared with the Muslim slaughter method without stunning. The total blood loss, percentage blood loss expressed as a percentage of live weight and percentage loss of estimated total blood were calculated and compared between each group. In addition, the time periods taken to reach 25, 50, 75 and 90% of total blood loss were also calculated. There was no significant difference between the two stunning groups for any of these blood loss variables. The results, subjected to statistical analyses, also showed no apparent difference in the PCV levels and meat quality parameters between treatments. These results confirm the findings with sheep and show that the bleed-out is not adversely affected by captive bolt stunning, nor improved by a neck cut without stunning in cattle. It is anticipated that these findings may help promote the use of stunning methods during Halal slaughter.

Farm animal welfare has now been studied, within a scientific framework, for several decades. The framework does not include ethical issues, but unless measurements of animal welfare at farm level are embedded in an ethical context, there is a danger that these measurements will not be properly utilised. This paper considers the relationship between ethical questions and animal welfare assessment. In it, the following four key ethical questions are identified. What is the baseline standard for morally acceptable animal welfare? What is a good animal life? What farming purposes are legitimate? What kinds of compromise are acceptable in a less-than-perfect world? The authors suggest that animal welfare scientists need to reflect carefully on these questions if welfare assessments are to be properly interpreted and put to practical use. Such reflection will lead to a more transparent appreciation of the values underlying welfare assessment. In this way, it will both offer welfare scientists a greater awareness of their own value-assumptions and enable the same scientists to communicate effectively with the wider audience — farmers, consumers, pressure groups, policy-makers and so on — for which the results of animal welfare assessments are of concern.