To-date, the dominant approach to improving farm animal welfare has consisted of a combination of voluntary improvements undertaken by farmers and the tightening of legal requirements. However, history suggests that there is a limit to the improvements capable of being secured by this approach. In this paper, it is argued that economic principles can and should have an important role when new, market-driven and other approaches are set up to improve farm animal welfare. The paper focuses on two ways in which economic principles can improve analyses of animal welfare. The first is by helping to define priorities as to which aspects of animal welfare should be promoted. Here, economic approaches can be used to capture and synthesise the perspectives of all the stakeholders, including the animals, in a transparent and systematic way. The second way is by helping to ensure that incentives are set up in the right way. Where the benefits and costs of improving animal welfare are initially distributed unevenly across stakeholders so that a socially desirable situation will not develop automatically, or be implemented, suitable economic principles may help to create incentives which correct this situation. Thus, if society is to achieve its goal of improving animal welfare, scholars from different disciplines should collaborate in identifying animal needs, assessing stakeholder preferences, making priorities transparent and providing incentives that make solutions realistically attainable.

The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) policy definition that “animal welfare is a complex international public policy issue with scientific, ethical, economic, cultural and religious dimensions, plus important trade policy considerations” clearly demonstrates the multi-faceted nature of animal welfare. Progress made is inevitably incremental and compromises often have to be reached between animal welfare and other important societal values. Recognition of the need for managed change over agreed time-frames, and involving full consultation with affected animal user groups, is essential. This paper draws on case studies involving intensive livestock agriculture, live animal exports for slaughter, religious slaughter and vertebrate pest control in both New Zealand's domestic experience, gained over the last 20 years, and international (OIE) experience, gained over the last ten years. Case studies will also highlight policy considerations relating to animal health, food safety and the impact on the environment. Important drivers of animal welfare change will be discussed; as will the constraints to making changes. The paper will conclude by commenting on the direction, and rate, of animal welfare change and the impact of animal welfare being addressed, not only at the national and regional level, but now also at the international level.

New livestock housing systems designed to improve animal welfare will only see large-scale commercial adoption if they improve profitability, or are at least cost neutral to the farm business. Economic evaluation of new system developments is therefore essential to determine their effect on cost of production and hence the extent of any market premium necessary to stimulate adoption. This paper describes such an evaluation in relation to high welfare farrowing systems for sows where any potential system needs to reconcile the behavioural needs of the sow with piglet survivability, acceptable capital and running costs, farm practicality and ease of management. In the Defra-sponsored PigSAFE project, a new farrowing system has been developed which comprises a loose, straw-bedded pen with embedded design features which promote piglet survival. Data on this and four other farrowing systems (new systems: 360° Farrower and a Danish pen; existing systems: crate and outdoor paddock) were used to populate a model of production cost taking account of both capital and running costs (feed, labour, bedding etc). Assuming equitable pig performance across all indoor farrowing systems, the model estimated a higher production cost for non-crate systems by 1.6, 1.7 and 3.5%, respectively, for 360° Farrower, Danish and PigSAFE systems on a per-sow basis. The outdoor production system had the lowest production cost. An online survey of pig producers confirmed that, whilst some producers would consider installing a non-crate system, the majority of producers remain cautious about considering alternatives to the farrowing crate. If pig performance in alternative indoor systems could be improved from the crate baseline (eg through reduced piglet mortality, improved weaning weight or sow re-breeding), then the differential cost of production could be reduced. Indeed, with further innovation by pig producers, management of alternative farrowing systems may evolve to a point where there can be improvements in both welfare and pig production. However, larger data sets of alternative systems on commercial farms will be needed to explore fully the welfare/production interface before such a relationship can be confirmed for those pig producers who will be replacing their units in the next ten years.

Since 2005, owners of draught and pack horses, mules and donkeys in nine districts of Uttar Pradesh, India, have received support from a UK-based charity, the Brooke. One thousand, three hundred and ninety-six village-level groups of owners and carers, responsible for 29,500 animals, were facilitated to develop their own welfare assessment protocols using a participatory learning and action process adapted from recognised good practice in human social development. Each group assessed the welfare of their animals collectively, using findings to generate action plans for improving equine health, husbandry and working practices. Welfare assessments were repeated at 1 to 3 month intervals. Competitiveness between participants to improve their animals’ welfare acted as a driver to increase the number of indicators and sensitivity of rating scales, enabling differentiation of small, incremental improvements in order to identify a ‘winner’ of each welfare assessment. Binary or three-point ‘traffic light’ (red-amber-green) scales evolved into a range of 5-, 10-, 20-point or continuous scales, then into multi-level and weighted measures to quantify the welfare improvements seen. Efforts to aggregate multi-dimensional indicators into a single ‘winning’ score led to indices describing welfare at individual animal level (‘welfare index’) and population level (‘village index’). Benefits of owner-driven monitoring include high levels of commitment and strong peer motivation or pressure to take action. Welfare monitoring and action to improve welfare are integrated within a single process carried out by the same people, in contrast to the separation of evaluation and implementation of welfare improvement seen in inspection or accreditation schemes. Challenges include aggregation of results from a variety of protocols for external analysis, reporting or certification.

This paper considers the economic consequences and the welfare impact of foot disorders in dairy cattle and the association between them, taking into account clinical and subclinical foot disorders. In dairy farming with cubicle housing and concrete floors, foot disorders are a major welfare problem with serious economic consequences. On average, foot disorders cost €53 per cow per year, of which indirect cost factors are the main cause. Subclinical foot disorders, which are the foot disorders not recognised by dairy farmers, account for 50% of the total welfare impact and 32% of the total costs. The consequences of foot disorders can be difficult to observe and more insight into these consequences is helpful in stimulating actions to improve dairy cow foot health. Digital dermatitis (DD), an infectious foot disorder, is the most serious foot disorder from both an economic and welfare perspective. The correlation between economics and animal welfare impact suggests that reducing the problem of foot disorders from an economic perspective will positively influence the welfare of dairy cows. Insight into economic and welfare consequences of the different foot disorders, including the association between them, can help make dairy farmers more aware and help with decision-making regarding measures to improve dairy cow foot health.

Involuntary culling (IC) is where a cow is disposed of due to injury, poor health or infertility. The main reasons for IC are infertility, mastitis and lameness. These reasons have differing age profiles in when they affect cows, cost variable amounts to treat and have an effect on the value of the cow at market. They also reduce cow welfare in different ways. These factors influence the economically optimum cow replacement decision, which must balance the risks of future loss from the current cow against its future prospects and the net costs of a replacement. So the farmer's economic decision as to when to cull a cow may not occur at the same time as when the cow could, and sometimes should, be culled to maximise her welfare. To explore this dilemma, we developed a Dynamic Programme (DP) model to assess the optimum replacement policies for each of 180 possible cow states (12 parities and 15 milk-yield levels) under a simplified set of alternative husbandry systems and remedial practices. The DP was used to explore the relationships between financial outcomes, investment in improving welfare, lifespan and IC in dairy systems. There is a trade-off between dairy cattle lifespan and risk of suffering over which farmers have some control by the replacement and investment decisions they make. Our results show that improving cow welfare by reducing mastitis, lameness or infertility over the long term increases the mean longevity of the herd and also reduces the potential of long-term suffering resulting from chronic conditions. Additionally, it has the effect of increasing replacement opportunities and the annuities for each cow (£ per cow per year) mainly by increasing milk yield and reducing costly on-farm culls, creating a win-win situation for both farmer and cow.

Extensive sheep farming systems make an important contribution to socio-economic well-being and the ‘ecosystem services’ that flow from large areas of the UK and elsewhere. They are therefore subject to much policy intervention. However, the animal welfare implications of such interventions and their economic drivers are rarely considered. Under Defra project AW1024 (a further study to assess the interaction between economics, husbandry and animal welfare in large, extensively managed sheep flocks) we therefore assessed the interaction between profit and animal welfare on extensive sheep farms. A detailed inventory of resources, resource deployment and technical performance was constructed for 20 commercial extensive sheep farms in Great Britain (equal numbers from the Scottish Highlands, Cumbria, Peak District and mid-Wales). Farms were drawn from focus groups in these regions where participative research with farmers added further information. These data were summarised and presented to a panel of 12 experts for welfare assessment. We used two welfare assessment methods one drawn from animal welfare science (‘needs’ based) the other from management science (Service Quality Modelling). The methods gave complementary results. The inventory data were also used to build a linear programme (LP) model of sheep, labour and feed-resource management month-by-month on each farm throughout the farming year. By setting the LP to adjust farm management to maximise gross margin under each farm's circumstances we had an objective way to explore resource allocations, their constraints and welfare implications under alternative policy response scenarios. Regression of indicators of extensification (labour per ewe, in-bye land per ewe, hill area per ewe and lambs weaned per ewe) on overall welfare score explained 0.66 of variation with labour and lambs weaned per ewe both positive coefficients. Neither gross margin nor flock size were correlated with welfare score. Gross margin was also uncorrelated with these indicators of extensification with the exception of labour/ewe, which was negatively correlated with flock size and hence with gross margin. These results suggest animal welfare is best served by reduced extensification while greater profits are found in flock expansion with reduced labour input per ewe and no increase in other inputs or in productivity. Such potential conflicts should be considered as policy adjusts to meet the requirements for sustainable land use in the hills and uplands.

This review article summarises the evidence for an effective management protocol for footrot to sheep, the welfare and economic benefits of such a protocol and its likely uptake by farmers. Over 90% of lameness in sheep in England is caused by Dichelobacter nodosus, the aetiological agent of footrot. Farmers can recognise lame sheep both from video clips and when examining their own sheep but make a separate decision about whether to catch lame sheep. Only farmers who catch and treat mildly lame sheep immediately report a low prevalence of lameness (< 5%). From a within-farm clinical trial, treatment of sheep lame with footrot with parenteral antibiotic and topical spray led to over 90% recovery from lameness within 10 days whilst only 25% of sheep treated with foot trimming and topical spray recovered in 10 days. In parallel, a within-farm clinical trial with approximately 800 ewes was run for 18 months to test the hypothesis that rapid appropriate treatment led to reduced prevalence of lameness. Ewes were stratified and randomly allocated to one of two groups. The prevalence and incidence of lameness decreased in the treatment group, where lame sheep were treated with parenteral and topical antibacterials within three days of being observed lame, but remained at approximately 8% in the control group where lame sheep were treated with trimming hoof horn and topical antibacterial spray when the farm shepherd considered them sufficiently lame. Sheep in the treatment group had a higher body condition and produced more lambs that grew faster. The net economic benefit to all sheep (whether lame or not) in 2006 was £6 per ewe put to the ram. A group of 265 farmers were asked about their satisfaction with methods to manage footrot. Satisfied farmers reported a prevalence of lameness of ≤ 5% and used rapid individual treatment. Dissatisfied farmers reported a prevalence of lameness of > 5% and used whole-flock footbathing and vaccination. Overall, farmers stated that their ideal managements would be footbathing and vaccination. One explanation for this apparent inconsistency is that farmers want effective vaccines and footbaths; an alternative explanation is that this is an example of cognitive dissonance, where subjects adopt a belief because it is their current practice despite evidence that it is not effective. We conclude that farmers can identify lame sheep and that rapid treatment of individual sheep lame with footrot with intramuscular and topical antibacterials is currently the most effective control of interdigital dermatitis and footrot in sheep but that in future effective measures that prevent footrot would be ideal.

Risk is defined as a situation involving exposure to danger. Risk assessment by nature characterises the probability of a negative event occurring and quantifies the consequences of such an event. Risk assessment is increasingly being used in the field of animal welfare as a means of drawing comparisons between multiple welfare problems within and between species and identifying those that should be prioritised by policy-makers, either because they affect a large proportion of the population or because they have particularly severe consequences for those affected. The assessment of risk is typically based on three fundamental factors: intensity of consequences, duration affected by consequences and prevalence. However, it has been recognised that these factors alone do not give a complete picture of a hazard and its associated consequences. Rather, to get a complete picture, it is important to also consider information about the hazard itself: probability of exposure to the hazard and duration of exposure to the hazard. The method has been applied to a variety of farmed species (eg poultry, dairy cows, farmed fish), investigating housing, husbandry and slaughter procedures, as well as companion animals, where it has been used to compare inherited defects in pedigree dogs and horses. To what extent can we trust current risk assessment methods to get the priorities straight? How should we interpret the results produced by such assessments? Here, the potential difficulties and pitfalls of the welfare risk assessment method will be discussed: (i) the assumption that welfare hazards are independent; (ii) the problem of quantifying the model parameters; and (iii) assessing and incorporating variability and uncertainty into welfare risk assessments.

Selection for brachycephalic (foreshortened muzzle) phenotypes in dogs is a major risk factor for brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome (BOAS). Clinical signs include respiratory distress, exercise intolerance, upper respiratory noise and collapse. Efforts to combat BOAS may be constrained by a perception that it is ‘normal’ in brachycephalic dogs. This study aimed to quantify owner-perception of the clinical signs of BOAS as a veterinary problem. A questionnaire-based study was carried out over five months on the owners of dogs referred to the Queen Mother Hospital for Animals (QMHA) for all clinical services, except for Emergency and Critical Care. Owners reported the frequency of respiratory difficulty and characteristics of respiratory noise in their dogs in four scenarios, summarised as an ‘owner-reported breathing’ (ORB) score. Owners then reported whether their dog currently has, or has a history of, ‘breathing problems’. Dogs (n = 285) representing 68 breeds were included, 31 of which were classed as ‘affected’ by BOAS either following diagnostics, or by fitting case criteria based on their ORB score, skull morphology and presence of stenotic nares. The median ORB score given by affected dogs’ owners was 20/40 (range 8-30). Over half (58%) of owners of affected dogs reported that their dog did not have a breathing problem. This marked disparity between owners’ reports of frequent, severe clinical signs and their perceived lack of a ‘breathing problem’ in their dogs is of concern. Without appreciation of the welfare implications of BOAS, affected but undiagnosed dogs may be negatively affected indefinitely through lack of treatment. Furthermore, affected dogs may continue to be selected in breeding programmes, perpetuating this disorder.

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

Farm assurance schemes are voluntary certification schemes that aim to provide consumers and retailers with assurances on animal welfare, environment and food safety standards. Whilst current schemes have often been focused on resource-based standards there has been interest in schemes including more outcome-based assessments. In order to maximise the likely impact of including these outcome assessments it is important to consider the economic, education, encouragement and enforcement drivers that may improve welfare. Using dairy cattle lameness as an example, the potential mechanisms to use these drivers within farm assurance schemes is reviewed. Future development of schemes should focus on encouraging the active participation of farmers in monitoring and managing outcome measures. Economic and educational approaches have a role in supporting change. Where possible, economic drivers need to be working in the same direction as welfare (ie provide win-win situations). Educational initiatives, such as providing generic technical information and farm-specific advisory support, need to be available when requested. Finally, enforcement tools, based on existing noncompliance procedures, may be needed to stimulate activity if other initiatives prove ineffective on individual farms.

One challenge with animal welfare assessment programmes is that standards that make a meaningful difference to welfare can be difficult for a broad spectrum of producers to meet, thereby preventing many from engaging at all. Global Animal Partnership's (GAP's) 5-Step™ Animal Welfare Rating Standards are unique in that they are designed as a multi-tiered system that encourages continuous welfare improvement. The 5-Step program allows for a wide variety of production models — from small farms raising fewer than 50 animals in extensive, outdoor systems to larger, indoor operations raising tens of millions — and allows producers to move up the Steps as they choose. Each additional Step provides a four-fold benefit: the animals have improved welfare, the producer has the opportunity of greater rewards and more accurate representation of her or his farming practices, retailers can provide wider product selection to meet their customer demands, and consumers have the guarantee of ever-increasing, welfare-friendly choices as well as a transparent source of information on how their meat was raised. GAP began piloting its 5-Step program in 2008 with comprehensive on-farm/on-ranch and transport standards for meat chickens, pigs and beef cattle in an exclusive, two-year partnership with Whole Foods Market (WFM), North America's largest natural-foods grocer. The variety of farms and ranches supplying WFM provided a thorough testing ground for the programme. Chicken, pork, beef and turkey products ranging from Step 1 to Step 5+ are available regionally in WFM stores in the USA and Canada. Having successfully completed this pilot phase with WFM, GAP is now negotiating with other retailers, both restaurants and grocers, as well as further-processors, in North America and beyond. The essence of the Steps is captured by the following phrases: Step 1 — no crowding, cages or crates; Step 2 — an enriched environment; Step 3 — enhanced outdoor access; Step 4 — pasture centred; Step 5 — animal-centred: bred for the outdoors; and Step 5+ — animal-centred: entire life on the same farm. As of 1 December 2011, more than 1,740 third-party audited and certified farms and ranches are raising more than 140 million animals annually according to GAP's 5-Step Animal Welfare Rating Standards.

This paper describes the implementation and simultaneous promotion of an action plan designed to ensure animal welfare standards on-farm that exceed the requirements for acceptability in law. The approach is based on two action cycles, the producer and retailer cycles, The producer cycle, involving welfare audit and the implementation of an action plan for welfare has four stages: self-assessment; independent audit; creation of an action plan based on identification of principal hazards and critical control points; review; and revision of the action plan depending upon assessment of outcomes. The retailer cycle is designed to set quality standards for animal welfare, demonstrate compliance, promote proven high welfare products and reward producers. The paper reviews some incentives and constraints to action for both farmers and retailers and presents encouraging examples of the extent to which both producers and retailers have responded to increased public demand for high welfare products.

Unless the benefits to society of measures to protect and improve the welfare of animals are made transparent by means of their valuation they are likely to go unrecognised and cannot easily be weighed against the costs of such measures as required, for example, by policy-makers. A simple single measure scoring system, based on the Welfare Quality® index, is used, together with a choice experiment economic valuation method, to estimate the value that people place on improvements to the welfare of different farm animal species measured on a continuous (0-100) scale. Results from using the method on a survey sample of some 300 people show that it is able to elicit apparently credible values. The survey found that 96% of respondents thought that we have a moral obligation to safeguard the welfare of animals and that over 72% were concerned about the way farm animals are treated. Estimated mean annual willingness to pay for meat from animals with improved welfare of just one point on the scale was £5.24 for beef cattle, £4.57 for pigs and £5.10 for meat chickens. Further development of the method is required to capture the total economic value of animal welfare benefits. Despite this, the method is considered a practical means for obtaining economic values that can be used in the cost-benefit appraisal of policy measures intended to improve the welfare of animals.

As the profile of farm animal welfare rises within food production chains, in response both to consumer demand and greater ethical engagement with the lives of animals, animal welfare is increasingly being commodified by various foodchain actors. That is to say that, over and above regulatory or assurance scheme compliance, welfare conditions and criteria are being used as a ‘value-added’ component or distinctive selling point for food products, brands or even particular manufacturers and retailers. We argue in this paper that such a commodification process has major implications both for the way in which farm animal welfare is defined and assessed (with greater emphasis being placed either on those welfare elements that lend themselves to commodification processes or on those that respond to consumer interpretations of what ‘good’ welfare might be at a particular time) and for the ways in which farm animal welfare is articulated and presented to food consumers as a component of product value or quality.

Regulation by government can act as a constraint to improving the humaneness of rodent control, or it can be used to support improvements. How do we make sure it does one and not the other? Societal support and understanding, economic impacts and current knowledge can all ‘make or break’ progress towards improved rodent control. This is also true in the development of regulations to support this improvement. Moreover, the development of regulations can itself slow progress towards better rodent control. There are many ways that governments, working in a national co-ordination role and as research funders, animal pest managers and regulators, can support a move towards improved rodent control. Progress will depend on finding ways that meet the need to control the impacts of rodents as pests and that are acceptable to citizens and budgets.

Management of invasive vertebrate species often requires the use of lethal control tools such as toxins, traps, or shooting. However, because these pest species are sentient and have the capacity to suffer, the application of such tools raises concerns about welfare impacts. To address such concerns, research, policy and regulation have focused most often on the welfare impacts (humaneness) of the tools at the individual animal level (ie the ‘quality’ of the impact) with no attempt to assess welfare at the population level (ie the ‘quantity’ of the impact). Because control programmes often target large numbers of animals, we suggest that when the welfare costs of pest control operations and strategies are being evaluated, the numbers of individuals involved should be considered in addition to the intensity and duration of individual suffering. We explore this concept using a modelling framework and three New Zealand case studies (brushtail possums [Trichosurus vulpecula], ship rats [Rattus rattus], and Bennett's wallabies [Macropus rufogriseus]) to assess the extent to which typical control strategies used by land managers influence the numbers of animals killed. We test whether a predicted relationship between numbers killed and position on the population growth curve holds across these scenarios, and identify whether it would be economically viable for end-users to adopt more welfare-friendly control strategies (ie those that kill fewer individuals to achieve the required management outcomes) for these pest species, or whether some form of incentive would be required. Computer modelling showed that for four simulated brushtail possum control strategies, the number of animals killed on a 1,000-ha area over 30 years ranged from approximately 13,000 to 26,000. Similarly, for two ship rat control strategies, numbers killed over a 20-year period were 977 for an aerial strategy versus 1,517 for a ground-based strategy. For both species, the strategies that killed fewest animals generally also cost the least. For Bennett's wallabies, because farmers only carry out control for production benefits, the control strategy they are most likely to select would result in the highest number of wallabies killed. To reduce the number of wallabies killed while allowing farmers to achieve some production benefits, farmers would need to receive some additional financial benefit. The concept of welfare incentive then raises questions such as ‘what willingness is there to pay for increased welfare’ and ‘to what extent can reducing control costs substitute for incentive payments in reducing numbers killed?’

Some pedigree and other dogs suffer from serious genetic health problems. It is sad to acknowledge that this is not new. Dogs have been exposed to an increasing number of hereditary diseases for decades. Some of the diseases are the result of naturally occuring processes that result in mutations and the close linkeage of undesirable traits with desirable ones, others, however, are the result of choices made by breeders and owners about what is desirable for the dog breed. An owner with a sick dog, has recourse to consumer's legislation should they wish to get some of the money back that they paid for the ‘defective’ animal. Consumer's law is based on EU standards, and does give the owner some opportunities to litigate. This paper explains EU legislation, and provides an overview of the opinion of (Dutch) judges regarding cases involving animals with genetic defects. Legal and veterinary perspectives do not always work together in a satisfactory manner. The need for further legislation to prevent the continued breeding of dogs with serious genetic defects is discussed.

Veterinary practice is subject to veterinary surgeons’ professional ethics, which ensure that patients’ welfare is considered paramount and clients’ interests are considered important. The provision of veterinary services is also subject to market forces that can affect transactions between clients and veterinarians. Veterinary markets could encourage or permit welfare harms due to potential market variations, imperfections and limitations, for example where financial constraints limit owners’ willingness to pay for treatment or veterinarians’ abilities to provide pro bono treatment. Consequently, economic factors could lead to potential welfare compromises through animals being undertreated, overtreated or mistreated. Fortunately there are possible solutions to these problems. Some are supplier-driven, for example improved the market functioning through transparency and honesty, strategically disrupting it through co-ordinating clinical standards and protocols or using veterinary authority to influence clients. Others are consumer-driven, for example improving consumer decision-making through the actions of insurance companies.