Animal welfare encompasses all aspects of an animal's life and the interactions between animals. Consequently, welfare must be measured across a variety of factors that consider aspects such as health, behaviour and mental state. Decisions regarding housing and grazing are central to farm management. In this study, two beef cattle systems and their herds were compared from weaning to slaughter across numerous indicators. One herd (‘HH’) were continuously housed, the other (‘HG’) were housed only during winter. Inspections of animals were conducted to assess body condition, cleanliness, diarrhoea, hairlessness, nasal discharge and ocular discharge. Hair and nasal mucus samples were taken for quantification of cortisol and serotonin. Qualitative behaviour assessments (QBA) were also conducted and performance monitored. Physical health indicators were similar between herds with the exception of nasal discharge which was more prevalent in HH (P < 0.001). During winter, QBA yielded differences between herds over PC1 (arousal) (P = 0.032), but not PC2 (mood) (P = 0.139). Through summer, there was a strong difference across both PC1 (P < 0.001) and PC2 (P = 0.002), with HG exhibiting more positive behaviour. A difference was found in hair cortisol levels, with the greatest concentrations observed in HG (P = 0.011), however such a pattern was not seen for nasal mucus cortisol or for serotonin. Overall, providing summer grazing (HG) appeared to afford welfare benefits to the cattle as shown with more positive QBA assessments, but also slightly better health indicators, notwithstanding the higher levels of cortisol in that group.

Recently, several farm assurance schemes in the United Kingdom have been adopting innovative approaches, such as welfare outcome assessment, into their routine procedures. In this paper, we present the findings of four consultation exercises, undertaken as part of a review process that examined farmer perspectives on planned or implemented changes to their current certification visits as members of UK-based dairy and laying hen schemes. The changes included the introduction of welfare outcome assessment by assessors, joint-scoring of welfare-outcome measures by farmers and assessors and self-assessment of welfare outcome measures by farmers between assessor visits. This study also explores the challenges that arise when schemes are aiming to adopt a scheme-level continuous improvement approach to promote welfare improvement on participating farms. The key challenges fall under three themes: the purpose and value for the farmer of the assessment of welfare outcomes as part of a farm assurance assessment process; the potential conflict rather than concordance with the role of the farmer in caring for their animals; and finally the technicalities of the assessment process, such as sample sizes for assessment being calibrated for gauging welfare prevalence at a scheme rather than farm level and the role of the farm assurance assessors both to assess impartially compliance against the standards and to provide welfare advice to support improvement. This study highlights that the involvement of farmers at all stages in the development and in the evaluation of outcome assessment initiatives is likely to be beneficial for welfare improvement on-farm.

An online training package providing a concise synthesis of the scientific data underpinning EU legislation on enrichment and tail-docking of pigs was produced in seven languages, with the aim of improving consistency of professional judgements regarding legislation compliance on farms. In total, 158 participants who were official inspectors, certification scheme assessors and advisors from 16 EU countries completed an initial test and an online training package. Control group participants completed a second identical test before, and Training group participants after, viewing the training. In Section 1 of the test participants rated the importance of modifying environmental enrichment defined in nine scenarios from 1 (not important) to 10 (very important). Training significantly increased participants’ overall perception of the need for change. Participants then rated nine risk factors for tail-biting from 1 (no risk) to 10 (high risk). After training scores were better correlated with risk rankings already described by scientists. Scenarios relating to tail-docking and management were then described. Training significantly increased the proportion of respondents correctly identifying that a farm without tail lesions should stop tail-docking. Finally, participants rated the importance of modifying enrichment in three further scenarios. Training increased ratings in all three. The pattern of results indicated that participants’ roles influenced scores but overall the training improved: i) recognition of enrichments that, by virtue of their type or use by pigs, may be insufficient to achieve legislation compliance; ii) knowledge on risk factors for tail-biting; and iii) recognition of when routine tail-docking was occurring.

Close collaboration between science and industry is essential for the formulation of evidence-based welfare policies. However, there is a need to recognise and manage potential challenges that may arise during collaborative projects. An applied animal welfare science project evaluating the inclusion of welfare outcome measures into UK pig farm assurance, with a view to industry implementation, is used as a case example to illustrate potential challenges. This project encountered difficulties associated with differences in understanding and expectations, discussion of controversial welfare issues, challenges to personal values and conflict between academic and industry outcomes. With the assistance of an independent review conducted during the project, potential solutions were developed and successfully implemented. It is proposed that similar science-industry partnerships should allow sufficient time for dialogue, distinguish between experimental and applied science, ensure sufficient involvement from interested parties and use facilitation techniques to develop consensus.

Most farm assurance schemes in the UK at least, in part, aim to provide assurances to consumers and retailers of compliance with welfare standards. Inclusion of welfare outcome assessments into the relevant inspection procedures provides a mechanism to improve animal welfare within assurance schemes. In this study, taking laying hens as an example, we describe a process for dealing with the practical difficulties in achieving this in two UK schemes; Freedom Food and Soil Association. The key challenges arise from selecting the most appropriate measures, defining sampling strategies that are feasible and robust, ensuring assessors can deliver a consistent evaluation and establishing a mechanism to achieve positive change. After a consultation exercise and pilot study, five measures (feather cover, cleanliness, aggressive behaviour, management of sick or injured birds, and beak trimming) were included within the inspection procedures of the schemes. The chosen sampling strategy of assessing 50 birds without handling provided reasonable certainty at a scheme level but less certainty at an individual farm level. Despite the inherent limitations within a time and cost sensitive certification assessment, the approach adopted does provide a foundation for welfare improvement by being able to highlight areas of concern requiring attention, enabling schemes to promote the use of outcome scoring as a management tool, promoting the dissemination of relevant technical information in a timely manner and increasing the scrutiny of standards important for the welfare of the birds.

This paper presents an account of a Welfare Quality® assessment of 92 dairy farms carried out by seven experienced assessors. The aim was to evaluate the potential of the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol with respect to its uptake by UK farm assurance schemes. Data collection, and measure aggregation were performed according to the Welfare Quality® protocol for dairy cows. This study examined the data itself, by the testing of how hypothetical interventions might be reflected in changes in the aggregated scores, and also investigated human-related aspects, through inter-assessor standardisation sessions to evaluate reliability, and an assessor focus group to collect feedback. Overall, three main ‘challenges’ were identified. The first challenge related to the large amount of missing data. Unexpectedly, this was such that it was only possible to calculate an overall classification for 7% of farms. The second challenge concerned the way in which aggregated scores did not always reflect hypothetical interventions. The final challenge was inter-assessor reliability, where not all assessors were found to achieve acceptable levels of agreement on a number of outcome measures by the third training session. Suggestions for managing these challenges included, follow-up to assessor training, the use of multiple imputation methods to fill in missing data, and, where applicable, not aggregating the scores. The conclusion of the study was that the protocol provided useful information from which to make an informed selection of measures, but that the challenges, combined with the lengthy assessment time, were too great for its use as a certification tool.

The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of the attitudes that those involved in the slaughter industry have towards animal welfare and animal welfare aspects of their work, and also to investigate if gender or characteristics of employment (eg previous training, role and experience) influence such views. A paper questionnaire consisting of 20 Likert items regarding either animal welfare or working in the slaughter industry and seven questions designed to gather information on participant gender and job characteristics was distributed to attendees at eleven Animal Welfare Officer (AWO) and Poultry Welfare Officer (PWO) courses run by the University of Bristol. Responses were received from 215 personnel involved in the slaughter industry. It was found that the views of the majority of the respondents towards animal welfare were positive. Being female, working routinely with mammals, having a longer period of time working in the industry, and having previous AWO/PWO training course experience were all associated with significantly more positive attitudes towards animals and working in the slaughter industry; while working with birds, and working in an enforcement or stockperson role had a significant negative influence on the response to some animal welfare- and employment-related statements. Although it should be considered that individuals attending an animal welfare course may already have an interest in animal welfare, the results suggest that gender and employment factors do influence attitudes to animal welfare in the slaughter industry, and that the origins and reasons for development of certain negative views warrant further investigation.

The effect of Farm Assurance (FA) assessors’ attitude to farm animal welfare on the inter-observer reliability of some welfare outcome measures achieved following training was investigated as part of a larger project examining the feasibility and benefits of the incorporation of some on-farm welfare outcome assessments into UK Pig Farm Assurance Schemes. A total of thirty-one FA assessors were trained in three training sessions to assess the following welfare outcome measures: body lesions, tail lesions, severe tail lesions, lameness and pigs requiring hospitalisation. Assessment of photographs, live observations of individual pigs and pens of pigs were used to generate inter-observer reliability data. A previously validated farm animal welfare questionnaire was used to assess the FA assessors’ attitudes to farm animal welfare. Principal Component Analysis of FA assessor scores for this questionnaire resulted in two major components, with component 1 termed ‘pigs have mental welfare’ and component 2 termed ‘people-centric, pigs as profit’. FA assessors demonstrated a range in attitudes to farm animal welfare and, when assessing the same pigs, recorded a range in prevalence of welfare outcome measures and degree of agreement with a gold standard following training. There were only seven out of a possible 98 significant correlations between the FA assessor scores for components 1 and 2 and their recorded prevalence of welfare measures and levels of agreement with a gold standard. In particular, FA assessors’ scores for component 1 were significantly positively correlated with the recorded prevalence for pigs requiring hospitalisation in two of the three training sessions although there was no effect on the agreement with a gold standard for this measure. These results indicate that training in welfare outcomes, defined by a standard protocol, is relatively unconfounded by observer attitudes to farm animal welfare. To obtain better levels of agreement between assessors, and therefore more reliable data, it is recommended that FA schemes concentrate their resources on providing good quality training in a well-defined protocol and reliability testing and that they do not need to attempt to account for the attitudes of the FA assessors to farm animal welfare.

A welfare assessment was conducted during 475 observations of 75 long-line tethered horses and 587 observations of 112 freerange horses kept on public grazing land in South Wales over a six-month period from March to August 2010. The observations included quantitative and qualitative behavioural assessments, assessments of physical welfare and assessments of the environment of the horse. Multi-level modelling was used to identify the significant factors affecting each measure. Tethered horses had similar behavioural repertoires to free-range horses but there were differences related to tethering, such as fewer observations of walking, trotting and cantering, increased vocalisations occurring during the observation and poorer qualitative ‘mood’ scores. There were few observations of severe physical welfare problems in either tethered or free-range horses, however tethered horses were observed more often to have eye abnormalities, hoof cracks, lameness and signs of limb pain but less often with mane and tail tangles, as thin or as dirty. Shelter from wind, rain or sun was available to almost all free-range horses (99.8% of observations) but was only found during 16.5% or fewer observations of tethered horses, giving them a greater risk of poor welfare during inclement weather. Similarly, tethered horses were infrequently observed to have access to clean water, and their willingness to drink when offered water, suggests the provision of water was inadequate and tethered horses may have been thirsty. There were significant confounding effects of the observer or climatic factors for some behavioural and physical measures that should be considered when conducting future studies.

This paper describes a case example where initiatives from private assurance schemes, scientists, charities, government and egg companies have improved the welfare of UK cage-free laying hens. The RSPCA and Soil Association farm assurance schemes introduced formal welfare outcome assessment into their annual audits of laying-hen farms in 2011. Feather loss was assessed on 50 birds from each flock on a three-point scale for two body regions: Head and Neck (HN) and Back and Vent (BV). In support of the observations, assessors were trained in feedback techniques designed to encourage change in farmer behaviour to improve welfare. In addition, during Year 2 farmers were asked about changes they had made, and intended to make on their farms. During 2011-2013 there were also wider industry initiatives to improve feather cover. Data were analysed from 830 and 743 farms in Year 1 and Year 2, respectively. From Year 1 to Year 2 there was a significant reduction in the prevalence of feather loss from 31.8% (9.6% severe) to 20.8% (6% severe) for the HN region, and from 33.1% (12.6% severe) to 22.7% (8.3% severe) for BV. Fifty-nine percent of 662 farmers reported they had made changes on their farms during Year 1 to improve bird welfare. For such a substantial industry change, attributing causation to specific initiatives is difficult; however, this is the first study to demonstrate the value to animal welfare of certification schemes monitoring the effectiveness of their own and other industry-led interventions to guide future policy.

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.

In this study, pig producers were identified whose practices exceeded the basic legal requirements and government recommendations for pig welfare. This novel approach was part of a larger project investigating the feasibility and benefits of the inclusion of some animal-based welfare outcome measures into the main UK pig-farm assurance schemes. A set of pig-keeping-system descriptor scores were devised through consultation with stakeholders, whereby a finishing pig farm would be classified on a scale of 1 (legislation compliance) to 5 (highest level of welfare provision) for six different elements of pig husbandry which can influence pig welfare (environmental enrichment, foraging behaviour, thermal comfort, physical comfort, tail docking and floor space provision). Animal-based observations were used to assess the welfare of a sample of between 67 and 220 pigs on 15 UK finishing pig farms, which were also classified according to the system descriptors. Scores achieved when assessing the environmental enrichment and physical comfort elements were significantly positively correlated with a qualitative assessment of good mood of the pigs and a measure of their oral manipulation and significantly negatively correlated with the prevalence of tail lesions and swollen bursae. However, there were wide variations in the prevalence of animal-based welfare outcome measures between farms with the same system descriptor score. These system descriptors are therefore not sufficient to be used alone to provide assurances on welfare. It is suggested that a combined approach of system descriptors and animal-based welfare outcome measures may be useful for providing assurances on higher levels of welfare.

The scientific literature on horses kept on common land in the UK is limited. Welfare codes and legislation are in place to safeguard the welfare of these horses; however, it has little scientific validation. This study investigated the welfare code compliance and physical welfare of both tethered (T) and free-ranging (F) horses kept on a public common in South Wales. A welfare assessment was developed using resource-based and animal-based measures. The assessment was carried out weekly over a six-week period on all horses found on the common, a total of 37 horses, 21 tethered and 16 free-ranging were observed during some or all visits. The mean prevalence of welfare measures assessed during weekly observations of individual horses was calculated. The highest mean prevalences were recorded for rainscald, hoof overgrowth and hoof cracks. Overall, no significant differences were found between welfare indicators for tethered and free-ranging groups of horses on the same common. There were high levels of compliance with the Welsh Government code of practice covering tethering in some areas, eg having a 4-m gap between tethered horses (96% compliance), however, in other areas there was poor compliance, eg exercise off the tether for a period each day (0% compliance). Changes to management, including provision of shelter, increased access to water, exercise and farrier attention, may significantly improve welfare. However, there was no evidence that tethering itself had a significant negative impact on the physical welfare of horses.

Improving dietary reporting among people living with obesity is challenging as many factors influence reporting accuracy. Reactive Reporting may occur in response to dietary recording, but little is known about how image-based methods influence this process. Using a 4-d image-based mobile food record (mFRTM), this study aimed to identify demographic and psychosocial correlates of measurement error and reactivity bias, among adults with BMI 25–40 kg/m2. Participants (n 155, aged 18–65 years) completed psychosocial questionnaires and kept a 4-d mFRTM. Energy expenditure (EE) was estimated using ≥ 4 d of hip-worn accelerometer data, and energy intake (EI) was measured using mFRTM. EI:EE ratios were calculated, and participants in the highest tertile were considered to have Plausible Intakes. Negative changes in EI according to regression slopes indicated Reactive Reporting. Mean EI was 72 % (sd = 21) of estimated EE. Among participants with Plausible Intakes, mean EI was 96 % (sd = 13) of estimated EE. Higher BMI (OR 0·81, 95 % CI 0·72, 0·92) and greater need for social approval (OR 0·31, 95 % CI 0·10, 0·96) were associated with lower likelihood of Plausible Intakes. Estimated EI decreased by 3 % per d of recording (interquartile range − 14 %,6 %) among all participants. The EI of Reactive Reporters (n 52) decreased by 17 %/d (interquartile range − 23 %,–13 %). A history of weight loss (> 10 kg) (OR 3·4, 95 % CI 1·5, 7·8) and higher percentage of daily energy from protein (OR 1·1, 95 % CI 1·0, 1·2) were associated with greater odds of Reactive Reporting. Identification of reactivity to measurement, as well as Plausible Intakes, is recommended in community-dwelling studies to highlight and address sources of bias.

In the UK, the pig industry is leading the way in the adoption of welfare outcome measures as part of their farm assurance scheme. The welfare outcome assessment (WOA), known as Real Welfare, is conducted by the farmers’ own veterinary surgeon. For the first time, this has allowed the pig industry to evaluate welfare by directly assessing the animal itself and to document the welfare of the UK pig industry as a whole. Farmer perspectives of the addition of a welfare outcome assessment to their farm assurance scheme have yet to be explored. Here, we investigate how the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol has been perceived by the farmers involved, what value it has (if any), whether any practical changes on farm have been a direct consequence of Real Welfare and ultimately whether they consider that the welfare of their pigs has been improved by the introduction of the Real Welfare protocol. Semi-structured interviews with 15 English pig farmers were conducted to explore their perceptions and experiences of the Real Welfare process. Our findings fall into three key areas: the lived experience of Real Welfare, on-farm changes resulting from Real Welfare and suggested improvements to the Real Welfare process as it currently stands. In all the three areas, the value farmers placed on the addition of WOA appeared to reflect their veterinary surgeon’s attitude towards the Real Welfare protocol. If the vet was engaged in the process and actively included the farmer, for example through discussion of their findings, the farmers interviewed had a greater appreciation of the benefits of Real Welfare themselves. It is recommended that future similar schemes should work with veterinary surgeons to ensure their understanding and engagement with the process, as well as identifying and promoting how the scheme will practically benefit individual farmers rather than assuming that they will be motivated to engage for the good of the industry alone. Retailers should be encouraged to use Real Welfare as a marketing tool for pig products to enhance the perceived commercial value of this protocol to farmers.