Standard cages for laboratory animals are often small, minimalist and barren. Such cages can compromise animal welfare, indicating that there are welfare-based reasons for improving their designs. However, a second issue, that is, whether animals from standard laboratory housing and husbandry conditions provide valid research data, also indicates that cage designs and husbandry methods need to be improved. This paper reviews various influences of standard laboratory cage design and husbandry. These include their effects on the repeatability of studies, models of neuro-degenerative disease, sensory development, physiology, and behaviour, the effects of standard social housing and standard handling, and the effects of maternal experience on the responses of offspring. These studies show that the development and responses of animals from standard laboratory housing and husbandry conditions are often unrepresentative and idiosyncratic, indicating that data are likely to have reduced external validity. An underlying question is whether animals from standard, barren laboratory cages are ‘abnormal’ and therefore might not provide valid baseline data. In terms of animal welfare, these studies indicate that standard laboratory housing may sometimes be associated both with reduced welfare and with reduced benefits gained from research. It is suggested that in a similar manner to the use of production measures when assessing cages for production animals, laboratory cages could be assessed in terms of their suitability to provide valid research data.

Considering the welfare of animals used in research is crucial for both the validity of the results obtained and for the social acceptance of animal research. In Europe, the majority of the 5,784 primates currently used for scientific purposes are macaques (Macaca fascicularis and M. mulatta). Inadequate housing conditions can lead to various physiological and behavioural alterations that indicate poor welfare and can impact upon the quality of the data collected. Although there are a number of documents that summarise scientific knowledge on welfare issues and describe the basic needs of macaques, a specific and comprehensive welfare evaluation tool is lacking for the two aforementioned species when housed in a research context. The objective of the Primate Welfare INdicators (PWIN) project is to develop a welfare assessment tool for macaques used in scientific research, through the adaptation of the existing AWIN protocol for farm animals. PWIN aims to provide an objective lifelong assessment of macaque welfare, with repeated evaluations taking place not only during studies but also before and after experimental procedures. The tool comprises an evaluation of macaque housing, nutrition, health and behaviour, complemented by behavioural observations using 10-min continuous focal sampling. PWIN will support ethical research practices, facilitate compliance with regulatory requirements, and enhance information transparency during inspections and project authorisation processes. Beyond tool development, this research seeks to encourage laboratory teams, including researchers, caretakers, and veterinarians, to regularly monitor macaque welfare at the individual level. The imperative to enhance animal welfare considerations in scientific research aligns with European legislation and the 3Rs principle. By establishing a versatile, species-specific method, this research aims to improve existing practices and support ethical, sustainable primate research.

The effects of food restriction on the welfare of sheep are as yet unclear. An operant crate and a push-door were used to measure feeding motivation in sheep after Oh, 6h, 12h, 18h and 24h without food. In experiment 1, sheep had to push a panel with their noses to obtain a food reward. In experiment 2, sheep had to run a race and push through a weighted door to reach food; the time taken to reach various points was recorded and the work performed to push through the door was calculated.

In experiment 1, 3 out of 12 sheep became trained to push the panel and there was a difference in the mean number of rewards/session obtained by each animal (P < 0.05). There was no effect of treatment on the number of panel presses performed. In experiment 2, 10 out of 14 sheep were successfully trained. More sheep went through the push-door when deprived of food (P < 0.05), and they were quicker to enter the race, reach the push-door, and reach the food than those which had not been deprived (P < 0.0001). They also spent less time pushing the door than non-deprived sheep (P < 0.0001).

The push-door was a more appropriate method of measuring motivation to feed in sheep, as more sheep learned the task in less time than for the operant crate. As measured by the time taken to enter the race, reach the push-door, push through the door and reach the food there was an increase in feeding motivation after only 6h without food.

The Five Domains model is influential in contemporary studies of animal welfare. It was originally presented as a conceptual model to understand the types of impact that procedures may impose on experimental animals. Its application has since broadened to cover a wide range of animal species and forms of animal use. However, it has also increasingly been applied as an animal welfare assessment tool, which is the focus of this paper. Several critical limitations associated with this approach have not been widely acknowledged, including that: (1) it relies upon expert or stakeholder opinion, with little transparency around the selection of these individuals; (2) quantitative scoring is typically attempted despite the absence of clear principles for aggregation of welfare measures and few attempts to account for uncertainty; (3) there have been few efforts to measure the repeatability of findings; and (4) it does not consider indirect and unintentional impacts such as those imposed on non-target animals. These deficiencies lead to concerns surrounding testability, repeatability and the potential for manipulation. We provide suggestions for refinement of how the Five Domains model is applied to partially address these limitations. We argue that the Five Domains model is useful for systematic consideration of all sources of possible welfare compromise and enhancement, but is not, in its current state, fit-for-purpose as an assessment tool. We argue for wider acknowledgment of the operational limits of using the model as an assessment tool, prioritisation of the studies needed for its validation, and encourage improvements to this approach.

The current study represents the second phase of developing the Yangtze Finless Porpoise Welfare Assessment Protocol (YFP-WAP), guided by the Five Domains model (FDM). Based on previously validated indicators, it aimed to create a scoring system to quantify welfare states. Application of the FDM grading system to the YFP-WAF revealed that indicators with higher scores influenced overall outcomes disproportionately, highlighting limitations in the original approach. As a result, a new scoring system was developed to ensure a more balanced contribution from all indicators across domains. The scoring system allows the separate quantification of welfare enhancement and compromise to prevent compensation between positive and negative experiences. It employs the sum of numerical values for each indicator, along with a percentage-based normalisation system to account for variations in indicator numbers across domains, ensuring balanced contributions to final welfare scores. In addition, a preliminary ‘Critical Scoring’ tool was created, which prioritises key indicators to identify urgent welfare issues before full assessment. Through the implementation of a standardised, transparent, and adaptable scoring method, the YFP-WAP aims to support individual-level welfare monitoring to improve the living conditions of captive porpoises and facilitate interventions for ex situ breeding programmes of YFP, and other closely related species. Despite challenges associated with fully capturing the complexity of welfare dynamics, this framework offers a practical and scientifically grounded approach for the assessment of the welfare of Yangtze finless porpoises (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis asiaeorientalis) under human care, that can also be applied or adapted to other cetacean species.

In the present study, the effect of training on inter-observer reliability was studied for a 5-category lameness scoring system used for routine on-farm surveys of welfare in dairy cattle. The inter-observer agreement between an experienced and an initially inexperienced observer was determined during an initial training phase and at specific time points in the course of data collection in 46 herds. During the training phase on three farms, inter-observer reliability increased to an acceptable level for both the 5-category gait scoring system and the distinction between lame and non-lame cows.

The 4th testing after 17 on-farm visits revealed a considerable increase in inter-observer reliability which was further improved in the course of the on-farm visits.

In conclusion, acceptable inter-observer agreement for differentiating between non-lame and lame cows was achieved after only a brief introduction. In order to obtain high inter-observer repeatability with the 5-category gait scoring system used in this study, (more) intensive training procedures are required.

Tests for assessing the animal-human relationship in tied dairy cows have been used in experimental research, but the reliability and feasibility of the measures in the on-farm context has not been studied yet. Therefore we investigated the between-experimenter repeatability of avoidance reactions in dairy cows housed in tie-stall systems. Nine farms in Austria with 15-60 tethered dairy cows were visited. Two to three out of four experimenters were testing the avoidance reaction of the individual cows in a balanced order. Cows were approached slowly from the front and the reactions recorded on an 11-point score. The avoidance reaction of each cow was assessed twice by each experimenter and averaged. Also, a farm value per experimenter was calculated (median). Repeatability between experimenters was assessed within farms and at farm level by calculating Spearman rank correlation coefficients. The average between-experimenter correlations within farms ranged from 0.37 to 0.88. At farm level, median of scores ranged from 2.5 to 6.75 and correlated moderately to highly between experimenters from 0.65 to 0.80. Testing the animals on all farms was relatively simple.

The between-experimenter repeatability within farms differed substantially and reasons for this merit further investigation. At farm level repeatability was moderate to sufficiently high. Due to the high feasibility, this measure seems to be promising and should be developed further.

This paper focuses on the reliability of the multi-criteria evaluation model included in the Welfare Quality® protocol for growing pigs to aggregate the animal-based indicators, first to criteria, then to principle level and finally to an overall welfare score. This assessment was carried out in a practical application study on a sample of 24 farms in Germany. Altogether, 102 protocol assessments were carried out in repeated visits to these farms in order to evaluate the inter-observer and test-retest repeatability of the overall scores calculated by the multi-criteria evaluation system. Reliability is then assessed by the calculation of different reliability and agreement parameters: Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients (RS), Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), Smallest Detectable Changes (SDC) and Limits of Agreement (LoA). Inter-observer repeatability was insufficient for the criteria comfort around resting, absence of injuries, expression of social behaviours, expression of other behaviours, good human-animal relationship and positive emotional state as well as for the principles good housing and appropriate behaviour. This is probably due in the main to insufficient repeatability of the underlying indicators that have been revealed in previous studies. Test-retest repeatability is predominantly insufficient. Overall, the present results highlight the importance of absolutely reliable indicators at the baseline level. Furthermore, it could be shown that the calculation procedure is partly incorrect and consequently needs correction. Therefore, this study is an important contribution to the future progression of the Welfare Quality® protocols and animal welfare assessment tools in general.

Dehydration is a serious welfare issue for equines working in developing countries. Risk factors such as high ambient temperature, heavy workload and poor water availability are exacerbated by the traditional belief that provision of water to working animals will reduce their strength or cause colic and muscle cramps.

As part of the welfare assessment of 4889 working horses and donkeys during 2002/3, eight observers were trained to perform a standardised skin tent test. The prevalence of a prolonged duration of skin tenting was 50% in horses and 37% in donkeys. Two studies investigated inter-observer repeatability of skin tent test techniques, using a total of 220 horses and donkeys in India and then Egypt: measures of agreement with a ‘gold standard’ observer varied from 40 to 99%. Simplifying the test by reducing the number of possible scores for skin tent from three (immediate return of skin to normal position; delayed return up to three seconds; delayed return more than three seconds) to two (immediate return of skin to normal position; delayed return of any duration) did not improve overall repeatability of the skin tent test. Potential reasons for not achieving high levels of agreement include variations in assessment method, assessors' previous experience, subjective demarcation between score categories and biological variability.

Feasibility and validity of protocols used to assess welfare were evaluated in two fattening rooms in twenty farms, chosen according to the group size, pen shape, floor and space per animal. The two rooms contained animals at the beginning or at the end of the fattening period, respectively. Behaviour was recorded either through direct observations of the pens (3 times per minute, at 5 min intervals), 15 minutes after entering the room (B1) or after the removal of an object given at the end of the visit (B3). The third protocol consisted of a 2 minute observation inside the pen (B2). To evaluate the human-animal interaction, the time to adapt to the presence of the operator in the corridor (HA1) was measured, as well as the reaction of the group when the operator entered the pen (HA2) or walked slowly through the pen (HA3), the time taken by the first five pigs to approach the operator (HA4) and the reaction of the animals when the operator tried to catch an ear (HA5). Lesion scoring was carried out inside the pen on a sample of 60 individual fatteners or at pen level on most of the pigs from the corridor. The occurrence of the main active behaviours is assessed similarly over time by B1 and B3. Behavioural observations are then possible in an on-farm welfare assessment. Lesion scoring from the corridor tends to under estimate the number of lesions (scratches, tail wounds). The HA3 test appears to be the best one to evaluate the relationship towards humans but has to be validated.

Investigating variability of scores between different observers, between animals and over time aids the design of valid sampling methodologies for measuring animal welfare. Locomotion scores (0 to 5 scale) were collected: i) from 154 sows in one herd, using three to five observers each time, and scoring sows on up to ten occasions over a 19-month period; and ii) for 123 of these sows, locomotion scoring also took place prior to farrowing and at weaning. The distribution of scores was highly skewed towards low scores (0: 84.8%, 1: 9.5%, 2:4.0%, 3+: 1.7%). Sows showed moderate consistency in their scores over time and later parity sows had higher scores, but there was no effect of stage in the reproductive cycle (days pregnant, pre-farrowing, post-weaning). This suggests that infrequent visits to a farm (eg annual) might provide an accurate estimate of the extent of lameness if a representative range of parities was sampled, although a larger study of more farms would be required to investigate this. The three different types of agreement between observers (absolute differences, matching and association) were assessed as follows: i) analysis of absolute differences between observers showed that the farm manager scored lower than researchers/technicians; ii) exact matching approaches suggested fair or good agreement — agreement was poorest for mild gait abnormalities (score 1 ‘stiff’), and agreement improved if scores were combined into ‘sound’ (0-1) and ‘lame’ (2-5) categories; and iii) measures of association suggested moderate agreement. Inter-observer reliability improved over time until the 5th scoring event. To improve inter-observer agreement, observer training/practice and the use of fewer categories are recommended, and inter-observer agreement should be checked regularly.

Changes in plasma Cortisol concentrations in response to a stimulus have been used to indicate aversiveness. Hormone concentrations at any time point depend on the interaction between an animal's previous experience and its present physiological state. In order to assess how an animal's perception of, and thus its response to, a stimulus change as it gains experience of the stimulus, eight Welsh Mountain ewes were subject to 2h road transport daily on three occasions and then once again 4 days later. Differences in Cortisol concentrations in plasma samples taken every 15min were assessed using a general linear model and Tukey's test.

Scientific studies of human-animal interactions (HAIs) and how these develop into human-animal relationships (HARs) now represent some of the most significant contributions to animal welfare science. However, due to the current definition of HAR, studies have only been able to measure HAIs and infer its impact on HARs and animal welfare. Here, we redefine HARs as a series of repeated HAIs between two individuals known to each other, the nature of which is influenced by their historical HAIs and where consideration to the content, quality and the pattern of the interactions is also vital. With a new definition, it is now feasible to empirically measure HARs, however, first, it is important to evaluate current methods utilised in animal industries to allow standardisation across HAR research in zoos. Here, we review the current methods that have been used to assess HAIs in animals and determine their overall suitability for measuring HARs and their use in a zoo environment. Literature searches were conducted using the search terms ‘human-animal’ AND ‘interaction’, ‘human-animal’ AND ‘relationship’, ‘human-animal’ AND ‘bond’. Subsequently, ‘zoo’, ‘companion’, ‘agriculture’, ‘laboratory’ and ‘wild’ were added to each combination yielding five potential methods to evaluate. These methods were assessed according to a panel of indicators including reliability, robustness, practical application and feasibility for use in a zoo environment. Results indicated that the methods utilising ‘latency’, ‘qualitative behaviour assessment’ and the ‘voluntary approach test’ were potentially viable to assess HARs in a zoo environment and could subsequently contribute to the assessment of welfare implications of these HARs for the animals involved. These methods now require empirical testing and comparisons within a zoo environment.

Individual differences in behaviour may be examined at two levels. First, individuals may differ in terms of frequencies, durations and/or patterning of particular measures of their behaviour. Second, individuals may differ in their temperament, ie in the way they react to environmental change and challenge. Individual differences in temperament are particularly relevant to animal welfare studies, for the welfare of an individual largely depends on whether it can cope with environmental challenge. Whereas the study of individual differences in behaviour at the first level may be achieved by using standard behavioural methods, the study of individual differences in temperament requires the use of more unusual methods, namely observers’ ratings and behavioural tests. Observers’ ratings provide information on subtle aspects of an individual's behaviour that could otherwise be overlooked. Behavioural tests facilitate comparisons between individuals in a more standardized way. It is suggested that both systems should be used together.

Taking individual differences into account when designing experiments may help reduce variability in studies on welfare issues and understanding the causes of individual differences in temperament may allow us to reduce the incidence of some welfare problems.

Although the physiological and behavioural changes that can indicate poor welfareare generally agreed upon, using these measures in practice sometimes yieldsresults that are hard to interpret. For example, different types of measure maysuggest quite different things about an animal's welfare. Suchcontradictions are often due to the differing properties of the variables beingmeasured. How each variable responds to a stressor can be affected by severalfactors - the type of unpleasant stimulus to which the animal is exposed; whenand for how long exposure occurs; the animal's psychological state, egdoes it feel that it is in control?; and the time at which the measurement ismade, relative to the stressor. Typical responses also often differ betweenspecies and between individuals, and may even change in a single individual overtime. Furthermore, some responses used to assess welfare lack specificity: theycan be elicited by neutral or even pleasant events as well as by aversive ones.Appreciating these factors is vital when designing experiments, when choosingwhat to measure along with each welfare variable, and when interpreting results.Even after taking these factors into consideration, interpreting a result canstill be difficult. One approach then is to consider the effects on welfare ofthe changes measured, eg if there is immunosuppression, does the animal succumbto disease? Another is to use the animal's behaviour to indicate itspreference for, or aversion to, particular environments. Ultimately, however,interpreting welfare measures involves subjective judgements which will beinfluenced by the nature of our concern for the animal under consideration. Byraising these problems, we hope that this review will highlight and clarify theapparent contradictions that sometimes emerge in scientific studies of animalwelfare, and help researchers improve the designs of their experiments for thebenefit of the animals concerned.

In this study we present a semi-random sampling method developed for the sampling of mink (Neovison vison) for on-farm welfare assessments according to the WelFur-Mink system. The only information required for implementation of this method is the number of cages in use in each shed on the farm. The representativeness of samples selected with this method was evaluated in relation to the physical characteristics of the farm and the mink characteristics by simulated sampling on a farm with a complicated structure in the growth period. The selection of 10,000 samples was simulated. The trueness was, in general, high, ie the method has no systematic skewness. The precision was low for certain factors due to the high variation within sheds. The sampling in sections of six adjacent cages means that it is often not possible to select a sample which is an exact representation of the mink and their housing environment. If accepting a deviation of ± one cage section, the estimated probability of selecting a representative sample was high for most of the individual factors. However, the estimated probability of selecting a sample that is representative according to all factors was rather low. This deviation from exact representativeness ought to be evaluated in the light of the increased feasibility and repeatability offered by the method. Also, we expect that the representativeness of samples selected with this method will be higher on other less-complicated farms. We suggest that this simple method balances feasibility and representative sampling in a way that makes it useful in the WelFur-Mink system.

Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) is part of the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cattle, although its inter- and intra-observer reliability have not been reported. This study evaluated inter- and intra-observer reliability of the QBA for dairy cattle in experienced and inexperienced observers using videos. Eight experienced observers performed the QBA (20 descriptors) twice for 16 video clips (60 s per clip; series 1) showing 4-17 animals. They assessed another 11 video clips showing herds (4 shots of 30 s per clip; series 2). Ten inexperienced observers performed the QBA on both video series one time. Inter-observer reliability of experienced observers ranged from slight to moderate (both assessments of series 1), and from low to high (series 2) for descriptors, and from slight to moderate for the QBA score. Inter-observer reliability of inexperienced observers ranged from low to moderate (series 1), and from low to high (series 2) for descriptors, and was moderate (both series) for the QBA score. Intra-observer correlations varied largely per descriptor and observer. They were both negative and positive, and ranged from low to very high. High correlations, however, were not necessarily associated with low paired differences. Values of half of the descriptors and the QBA score differed amongst experienced and inexperienced observers. The QBA appears insufficiently reliable as a tool for welfare assessment in dairy cattle.

Qualitative Behaviour Assessment of cattle expression using a fixed rating scale of 20 descriptors is one of the measures of the Welfare Quality® (WQ) assessment protocol for dairy cattle. As for other on-farm measures of welfare, reliability is an important issue especially if farms are to be certified. This study investigated the repeatability of QBA results across three different observation times during the day (early morning, late morning, early afternoon). For this purpose, 13 observers assessed a total of 30 video clips from ten commercial dairy farms using visual analogue scales to score the 20 QBA terms. QBA scores for ‘emotional state’ were computed according to the Welfare Quality® protocol (WQ_QBA) and, additionally, a Principal Component Analysis was carried out. The latter revealed two main dimensions which may be described as ‘mood’ and ‘activity’, the former thus corresponding to the ‘emotional state’ score of the WQ protocol. Both for scores derived from the WQ protocol and from PCA, mixed model analysis for repeated measures revealed a significant effect of observation time depending on the farm. Mixed model analysis for repeated measures revealed a significant effect of observation time for three farms out of ten on both the WQ_QBA score and the PCA ‘mood’ dimension; a similar effect was found for eight out of ten farms for the PCA ‘activity’ dimension. These results indicate that observation time potentially affects WQ (and other QBA) outcomes on a proportion of farms. However, given that outcomes for WQ_QBA and PCA ‘mood’ were consistent for the majority of farms, procedures suggested in the Welfare Quality® protocol may constitute a reasonable compromise between reliability and feasibility. If the QBA assessment should reflect the ‘mean mood’, multiple assessments throughout the day may be carried out.

Obtaining reliable welfare outcome measures from commercial farms can be challenging. We developed a training programme to train observers to score injuries of the tarsal joint, carpal joint and neck on dairy cows as part of an on-farm study. Twelve trainees were trained using protocols and photographs in a classroom session and on-farm visits. Continued repeatability checking was carried out during a refresher and mid-way assessment. Two trainers were used as the reference standard to which all trainees were compared. The study demonstrated that methods of scoring tarsal joint, carpal joint and neck injury can be learned by trainees from different backgrounds and high repeatability can be achieved and maintained at a very large regional or national level. Successful learning of injury scoring is dependent on protocols with strong definitions and photographs as well as repetitive training sessions. Additionally, continued repeatability checks are essential to ensure the reference standard continues to be met. This training programme can be used as a model to successfully train on-farm assessors.

Many animal welfare traits vary on a continuous scale but are commonly scored using an ordinal scale with few categories. The rationale behind this practice is rarely stated but appears largely based on the debatable conviction that it increases data reliability. Using 54 observers of varying levels of expertise, inter-observer reliability (IOR) and user-satisfaction were compared between a 3-point ordinal scale (OS) and a continuous modified visual analogue scale with multiple anchors (VAS) for scoring lameness in dairy cattle from video. IOR was significantly better for the VAS than for the OS. IOR increased with self-reported level of expertise for the VAS, whereas for the OS it was highest for observers with a moderate level of expertise. The mean continuous scores and the mean categorical scores were highly correlated. Three times as many observers stated a preference for the VAS (n = 27) compared to the OS (n = 9) in investigating differences in lameness between herds. Contrary to common perception, these results illustrate that it is possible for a continuous cattle lameness score to be more reliable and to have greater user acceptability than a simple categorical scale. As continuous scales are also potentially more sensitive, and produce data more amenable to algebraic processing and more powerful parametric analyses, the scepticism against their application for assessing animal welfare traits should be reconsidered.