Animal welfare official inspections: farmers and inspectors shared concerns

Official inspections to check the compliance of farms with European legislation to protect farm animals are often perceived negatively by farmers. In addition, the inspections have a limited effect on improving farm compliance. We looked at the perceptions of both farmers and their inspectors about animal welfare and the inspections in a case study of dairy production in France. The identification of gaps and commonalities between both parties should help us to propose improvements in the inspection method by which inspections could more likely encourage compliance with animal welfare legislation. To achieve this aim, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 dairy farmers and their 19 inspectors. Both farmers and inspectors described animal welfare in terms of the state of the animal and of the living conditions and care provided to them. The majority of farmers found that the official checklist used by the inspectors is inappropriate to assess the welfare of their animals; inspectors themselves reported that they often use their own criteria and indicators (often based on the observation of animals) in addition to the official checklist. Both groups disagreed with some requirements of the legislation. These findings suggest that the content and background of the legislation to protect animals should be made clearer to both farmers and inspectors and that these two groups of actors should be involved in the definition of key points to be checked on farms, with special attention to animal-based indicators. All this could improve farmers' engagement with the results of the inspections and, hopefully, could lead to better compliance with legislation and improvements in animal welfare on farms.     

My pigs are ok,why change? – animal welfare accounts of pig farmers

Intensive pig production systems are a source of stress, which is linked to reduced animal welfare and increased antimicrobial use. As the gatekeepers of the welfare of the animals under their care, farmers are seen as the stakeholder responsible for improving animal welfare. The aim of this study was to explore the knowledge and attitudes of pig farmers towards pig welfare and the impact of such attitudes on farmers' selection of management strategies on the farm. We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 44 pig farmers in one of the main pig producing regions of Brazil. Interviews covered knowledge and attitudes towards pig sentience and behaviour and welfare-related issues commonly observed in intensive pig farms (belly-nosing, fights, tail-biting, diarrhoea and castration without pain control) and farmers' conception and attitudes towards pig welfare. We identified many management and animal-based indicators of poor welfare, such as the use of painful and stressful management practices and use of environments that limit the expression of natural behaviours. However, most farmers were satisfied with animal welfare standards at their farms. Farmers' perceptions are aligned with their understanding of animal welfare. Although they identified all the dimensions that impact the welfare of a pig on a farm (affect, biological functioning and naturalness), their social reality, industry demands and available advice pushed them to perceive their range of action limited to biological and environmental aspects of the animals that do not necessarily benefit affective state. This precluded farmers from making associations between good health and the animal's ability to express a full behavioural repertoire, as well as from viewing abnormal behaviours as problems. The negative consequences for the welfare of the animals were commonly alleviated by routines that relied on constant use of medication, including high dependence on antibiotics. Expressions of estrangement from the production chain were common voices among the participants. This suggests that farmers may not be sufficiently informed or engaged in responding to consumers' expectations and commitments made by companies, which can pose a severe economic risk for farmers. The findings of this study indicate that economic, technical and social factors restrict farmers' autonomy and their ability to perform their role as stewards of animal welfare. (Re)connecting different human, animal and environmental interests may be a step to changing this scenario.     

‘Would it sell more pork?’ Pig farmers’ perceptions of Real Welfare,the welfare outcome component of their farm assurance scheme

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.     

An indicator-based method for quantifying farm multifunctionality

Production of food and fibres has traditionally been the main function of agriculture. In the last decades an increased focus on the importance of other functions has been discussed within the framework of agricultural and general land use multifunctionality. To a large extent farmers’ decisions and actions determine which functions their farming practices support. The extent of the production function is straightforward to identify and quantify but problems persist in rating functions such as ecosystem maintenance, housing, and amenity values.This paper presents a method to quantify and compare multifunctionality at farm level. Four main farm functions–production, residence, provision of wildlife habitats, and recreation–are selected to describe multifunctionality. In the quantification process indicators are identified to produce four aggregated function scores based on farm characteristics and activities. The farm data that support the indicators is derived from an interview survey conducted in 2008.The aggregated function scores vary with farm size as well as farm type; smaller, hobby-based farms in general score highest in the residence function whereas bigger, full-time farms score highest in the production, wildlife habitat, and recreation functions. This suggests that trade-offs between production development on the one side and environmental and recreational concerns on the other side may not be as high as expected. Farm of sizes 50–100 ha showed the highest multifunctionality–in this paper described as balance among functions–whilst smaller and bigger farms were biased towards mainly residence and production concerns, respectively.Challenges in quantifying functions still persist, but the suggested approach offer a method by which functionality can be compared among farms and among functions. Knowledge on the functional focus at farm level may assist both farmers and spatial planners in decision making regarding future management of agricultural landscapes.     

Involvement of small-scale dairy farms in an industrial supply chain: when production standards meet farm diversity

In certain contexts, dairy firms are supplied by small-scale family farms. Firms provide a set of technical and economic recommendations meant to help farmers meet their requirements in terms of the quantity and quality of milk collected. This study analyzes how such recommendations may be adopted by studying six farms in Brazil. All farms are beneficiaries of the country's agrarian reforms, but they differ in terms of how they developed their activities, their resources and their milk collection objectives. First, we built a technical and economic benchmark farm based on recommendations from a dairy firm and farmer advisory institutions. Our analysis of the farms' practices and technical and economic results show that none of the farms in the sample apply all of the benchmark recommendations; however, all farms specialized in dairy production observe the main underlying principles with regard to feeding systems and breeding. The decisive factors in whether the benchmark is adopted and successfully implemented are (i) access to the supply chain when a farmer establishes his activity, (ii) a grasp of reproduction and forage production techniques and (iii) an understanding of dairy cattle feed dietary rationing principles. The technical problems observed in some cases impact the farms' dairy performance and cash position; this can lead to a process of disinvestment. This dynamic of farms facing production standards suggests that the diversity of specialized livestock farmers should be taken into account more effectively through advisory approaches that combine basic zootechnical training with assistance in planning farm activities over the short and medium term.     

Farmer views on calving difficulty consequences on dairy and beef farms

Calving difficulty (CD) is a key functional trait with significant influence on herd profitability and animal welfare. Breeding plays an important role in managing CD both at farm and industry level. An alternative to the economic value approach to determine the CD penalty is to complement the economic models with the analysis of farmer perceived on-farm impacts of CD. The aim of this study was to explore dairy and beef farmer views and perceptions on the economic and non-economic on-farm consequences of CD, to ultimately inform future genetic selection tools for the beef and dairy industries in Ireland. A standardised quantitative online survey was released to all farmers with e-mail addresses on the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation database. In total, 271 farmers completed the survey (173 beef farmers and 98 dairy farmers). Both dairy and beef farmers considered CD a very important issue with economic and non-economic components. However, CD was seen as more problematic by dairy farmers, who mostly preferred to slightly reduce its incidence, than by beef farmers, who tended to support increases in calf value even though it would imply a slight increase in CD incidence. Farm size was found to be related to dairy farmer views of CD with farmers from larger farms considering CD as more problematic than farmers from smaller farms. CD breeding value was reported to be critical for selecting beef sires to mate with either beef or dairy cows, whereas when selecting dairy sires, CD had lower importance than breeding values for other traits. There was considerable variability in the importance farmers give to CD breeding values that could not be explained by the farm type or the type of sire used, which might be related to the farmer non-economic motives. Farmer perceived economic value associated with incremental increases in CD increases substantially as the CD level considered increases. This non-linear relationship cannot be reflected in a standard linear index weighting. The results of this paper provide key underpinning support to the development of non-linear index weightings for CD in Irish national indexes.     

Which preventive measures against mastitis can increase the technical efficiency of dairy farms?

The aim of this paper was to explore if, and in that case how, various preventive measures against mastitis influenced the whole-farm economic outcome, measured as technical efficiency, of a sample of specialised dairy farms in Sweden. In particular, the paper aimed at analysing whether a change to preventive measures applied by fully efficient farms would be a way for inefficient farms to become fully efficient. First, technical efficiency was assessed for each farm in the sample based on farm-level accounting data and the data envelopment analysis. In a second step, the effects of preventive measures against mastitis (collected through a mail questionnaire) on technical efficiency were assessed with logistic regression. Keeping cows in a loose-housing barn, stimulating udders manually during milking, and having cows standing on clean bedding during milking were found to significantly increase the probability of a farm being fully efficient. Once the farmer considers the somatic cell count (SCC) to be too high, undertaking measures such as contacting a veterinarian, checking overall hygiene routines, and culling cows with high SCC were found to significantly increase the probability of a farm being fully efficient. Thus, these measures may be plausible targets for advisory services aimed at assisting farmers to become fully efficient, especially if they are confirmed in future studies. Several common preventive measures against mastitis, that is, choice of bedding material, frequency of cleaning stalls, pre-milking, post-milking teat disinfection, applying a milking order based on the SCC of cows, and milking high-SCC cows with a separate cluster, were found to have no statistically significant effect on farm economic outcome. However, these measures may still be valuable for non-economic goals, such as increased animal welfare, and the results imply that they can be implemented without negative impact on the economic performance of the farm.     

The Concept of Animal Welfare at the Interface between Producers and Scientists: The Example of Organic Pig Farming

In organic farming animal welfare is one important aspect included in the internationally agreed organic principles of health, ecology, fairness and care (IFOAM 2006), reflecting expectation of consumers and farmers. The definition of organic animal welfare includes—besides traditional terms of animal welfare—‘regeneration’ and ‘naturalness’. Organic animal welfare assessment needs to reflect this and use complex parameters, include natural behaviour and a systemic view. Furthermore, various parties with seemingly conflicting interests are involved, causing ethical dilemmas, such as the use of nose rings for outdoor sows (impaired animal welfare vs. destruction of humus). Solutions can only be found when foundational concepts are translated and applied to practical situations. On-farm animal welfare assessment and implementation of improvement strategies are increasingly relevant scientific areas. They combine on-farm welfare assessment, identification of key problem areas and connected risk factors. Constant communication between all parties is crucial for success. Animal health and welfare planning is one application of this approach, which was carried out on Austrian organic pig farms as well as organic dairy farms in seven European countries. The projects included welfare assessment, feedback and benchmarking as a tool for communication between farmers, advisors and scientists. Finally goals were set by the farmer and improvement strategies applicable to organic farming were implemented. This included prevention of disease by management strategies instead of routine treatment with pharmaceutical products. It appeared that next to problem structuring, multidisciplinary problem solving demands good communications skills to relate animal welfare science to value reflections.     

Evaluation of organic,conventional and intensive beef farm systems: health,management and animal production

The overall aim of the present study was to analyse and compare organic beef cattle farming in Spain with intensive and conventional systems. An on-farm study comparing farm management practices and animal health was carried out. The study also focussed on a slaughterhouse analysis by comparing impacts on the safety and quality of the cattle products. Twenty-four organic and 26 conventional farms were inspected, and farmers responded to a questionnaire that covered all basic data on their husbandry practices, farm management, veterinary treatments and reproductive performance during 2007. Furthermore, data on the hygiene and quality of 244, 2596 and 3021 carcasses of calves from organic, intensive and conventional farms, respectively, were retrieved from the official yearbook (2007) of a slaughterhouse. Differences found between organic and conventional farms across the farm analysis did not substantially reflect differences between both farm types in the predominant diseases that usually occur on beef cattle farms. However, calves reared organically presented fewer condemnations at slaughter compared with intensive and to a lesser extent with conventionally reared calves. Carcass performance also reflected differences between farm type and breed and was not necessarily better in organic farms.     

Effects of a participatory approach,with systematic impact matrix analysis in herd health planning in organic dairy cattle herds

The animal health and welfare status in European organic dairy production does not in all aspects meet the organic principles and consumers’ expectations and needs to be improved. To achieve this, tailored herd health planning, targeted to the specific situation of individual farms could be of use. The aim of this study was to apply herd health planning in a structured participatory approach, with impact matrix analysis, not previously used in this context, in European organic dairy farms and to assess changes in animal health and welfare. Herd health planning farm visits were conducted on 122 organic dairy farms in France, Germany and Sweden. The farmer, the herd veterinarian and/or an advisor took part in the farm discussions. The researcher served as facilitator. Baseline data on the animal health status of the individual farm, collected from national milk recording schemes, were presented as an input for the discussion. Thereafter a systematic impact matrix analysis was performed. This was to capture the complexity of individual farms with the aim to identify the farm-specific factors that could have a strong impact on animal health. The participants (i.e. farmer, veterinarian and advisor) jointly identified areas in need of improvement, taking the health status and the interconnected farm system components into account, and appropriate actions were jointly identified. The researcher took minutes during the discussions, and these were shared with the participants. No intervention was made by the researcher, and further actions were left with the participants. The number of actions per farm ranged from 0 to 22. The change in mortality, metabolic diseases, reproductive performance and udder health was assessed at two time points, and potential determinators of the change were evaluated with linear regression models. A significant association was seen between change in udder health, as measured by the somatic cell count, and country. At the first follow-up, a significant association was also found between change in the proportion of prolonged calving interval and the farmers’ desire to improve reproductive health as well as with an increase in herd size, but this was not seen at the second follow-up. The degree of implementation of the actions was good (median 67%, lower quartile 40%, upper quartile 83%). To conclude, the degree of implementation was quite high, improvement of animal health could not be linked to the herd health planning approach. However, the approach was highly appreciated by the participants and deserves further study.     

Using Realistic Evaluation to understand how interventions work on dairy farms

Interventions that aim to help farmers change on-farm practices recommend that advisors communicate effectively with farmers, work collaboratively to set goals and provide farmers with resources that are applicable to the farm context. We developed an intervention that aimed to help farmers modify and use a standard operating procedure (SOP) for colostrum management; failure of passive transfer of immunoglobulins is common on dairy farms and SOPs for colostrum management are increasingly required by farm animal welfare assurance programs. We used Realistic Evaluation to evaluate whether, how and why our intervention to help farmers modify and use SOPs for colostrum management facilitated change and provide recommendations based on our approach that can improve the design and implementation of future interventions. We used a multiple case study on five farms over 8 months, collecting data through interviews, participant observation, document analysis and field notes. We identified three mechanisms that influenced whether participants modified and used their SOP. The purpose mechanism distinguished between participants who thought the aim of the SOP was for farm staff to learn and understand how to complete a task versus those who thought that the SOP was only useful for compliance with assurance programs. The utility mechanism distinguished between participants who thought that the SOP would be helpful for daily use on their farm, versus those who did not. The physical text mechanism distinguished between participants who used the templates we provided to modify and use their SOP, versus those who did not. A key contextual factor on all farms was participant belief of having capable and engaged staff on their farm; modification and use of the SOP did not occur unless this was the case. To facilitate change, intervention developers should actively participate in the intervention to develop an understanding of farmer needs, understand the purpose behind different goals set by farmers and integrate tools, advice and resource demonstrations when possible. We conclude that Realistic Evaluation is a useful framework for evaluating how contexts and mechanisms generate outcomes on farms, and to understand how, and in which contexts, complex interventions facilitate change. We suggest that this approach can improve the success of interventions and help direct the approaches used on different farms.     

Application of the Welfare Quality® assessment system on European beef bull farms

Welfare concerns for intensive beef production have often been raised, but on-farm welfare assessment studies are rare. The aim of this study was to apply the Welfare Quality® (WQ) welfare assessment system for fattening cattle on beef bull farms to evaluate the state of welfare at the level of WQ measures and of aggregated scores, as well as overall classification. In addition, the purpose was to evaluate two ways of providing feedback information to the farmers with regard to possible welfare improvements on the farms. The study was conducted in Austria, Germany and Italy on a total of 63 beef bull farms with deep litter or cubicle-housing systems. Assessments were carried out 3 times (1 month and 7 months apart from the initial visit). In every country, farmers were assigned to two treatment groups (feedback from initial visit as written report, F, written feedback plus oral advice, FA) and a control group (C), which did not receive any feedback. At the criterion level, the highest average welfare scores were obtained from ‘Absence of prolonged hunger’ (94/100 points) followed by ‘Absence of pain induced by management procedures’ (88/100) and ‘Comfort around resting’ (77/100). Most welfare concerns related to the criteria ‘Absence of disease’ (40/100), ‘Expression of social behaviour’ (44/100) and ‘Positive emotional state’ (48/100), thus indicating room for improvements. Two-thirds of the farms achieved the ‘Enhanced’ level, about one-third was judged ‘Acceptable’ and only one farm ‘Excellent’. After 6 months of monitoring period, there was no significant welfare improvement in both the treatment groups as compared with the control group. Reasons for the lack of effect may mainly be seen in the short monitoring period and a lack of external incentives. In conclusion, the WQ assessment system revealed areas for improvement, but longer term studies and investigations on alternative ways of transferring outcomes from on-farm welfare assessments to farmers should be carried out in future.     

Pain detection and amelioration in animals on the farm: issues and options

Pain in nonhuman animals is a difficult concept to identify and measure. This article briefly describes the consequences of pain in animals on the farm and explains the reasons for the minimal use of analgesics in farmed animals. Pain can have implications for both animal welfare and economics. The reasons for a low use of analgesics in farmed animals include the lack of recognition of animal pain owing to the apparent lack of anthropomorphically identifiable behavioral changes, concern over human food safety, and lack of research efforts to develop safe analgesics for farm use. Treatment cost relative to the benefits expected is another hindering factor. Interventions to minimize pain must begin with developing objective and practical measures for pain identification and measurement at the farm level. A suggested use of a combination of different behavioral and physiological indicators would help to identify pain in animals. To facilitate continued usage of the methodologies on the farm it also is necessary to evaluate the economic implication of the pain alleviation intervention.     

Family cohesion vs. capitalist hegemony: Cultural accommodation on the north Dakota farm

Conclusion The economic domination of household agricultural production by agribusiness on a national scale has been so complete that for many years analysts have concluded that the independent family farm has more existence in myth than in reality. Given that most farmers are excluded from realizing the ideal of family owned operations sustaining generation after generation, and even the fortunate few are subject to structural economic domination by big capital, one may ask why it is that rural families have persisted in valuing this way of life. In the face of these contradictions between the family farm myth and the experience of family farmers, the persistence of agricultural individualism and its Jeffersonian ideals of rural free-enterprise is remarkable.What to make, then, of these values, of this tradition? Has the independent family farm in Mercer County (and in the rest of North America) become a mere fiction and its values merely ideology? Traditional rural society is in danger of passing from anachronism to illusion with the increasing contradictions between its values and the realities arising out of its relationship to industrial capital. These values have become more rhetorical and imaginary; they lose their substance when compromised by families and communities responding to economic crisis by binding themselves ever more tightly to the very market forces that undermine them, and they lose their traditional meaning when used in advertising to promote further industrialization.The transformation of the American heartland myth comes full circle when it is appropriated by mass media in sympathetic reports on the farm crisis. Such coverage typically highlights an individual farm couple's stoic grief as the old family place is put up on the auction block, with lamentation over the loss of this traditional institution and breaking of a farm family's continuity. Focus on these emotionally wrenching and symbolically loaded images romanticizes and obscures the historical realities of farm family life, by suggesting that family farmers as a class have ever been otherwise than economically threatened and broken-up. Media analysis mourns the passing of family farms without criticizing the structures which grind them to pieces, and so is simply another reflection of the nostalgic and individualistic ideology that supports the very fragmentation it laments.After more than a century of struggle for survival, family farmers continue to be, in the words of one exasperated activist, victims of their own suicidal assumption that individual effort, a free market and elimination of governmental intervention will solve their economic problems. Farmers in the United States are political conservatives, and are notoriously difficult to organize in cooperative associations. As petty capitalists, they have been subject to the laws of motion of capitalist society, that have made their's a competitive way of life that is destructive of their families. Nonetheless, the dialectic between the ideals and the practical experiences of farming has produced ideological acquiescence to the system that has caused them so much suffering.

---

     

Empirical evaluation of sustainability of divergent farms in the dryland farming systems of India

The present study argues that there are heterogeneous farm systems within the drylands and each farm system is unique in terms of its livelihood asset and agricultural practice, and therefore in sustainability. Our method is based on household survey data collected from 500 farmers in Anantapur and Kurnool Districts, in Andhra Pradesh State of India, in 2013. We carried out principal component analysis (PCA) with subsequent hierarchical clustering methods to build farm typologies. To evaluate sustainability across these farm typologies, we adopted a framework consisting of economic, social and environmental sustainability pillars and associated indicators. We normalized values of target indicators and employed normative approach to assign different weights to these indicators. Composite sustainability indices (CSI) were then estimated by means of weighted sum of indicators, aggregated and integrated into farm typologies. The results suggested that there were five distinct farm typologies representing farming systems in the study area. The majority of farms (>70%) in the study area are small and extensive (typology 1); marginal and off farm based (typology 2). About 20% of the farms are irrigation based and intensive (typology 3); small and medium and off farm based (typology 4) and irrigation based semi-intensive (typology 5). There was apparent variability among farm typologies in terms of farm structure and functions and composite sustainability indices. Farm typologies 3 and 5 showed significantly higher performances for the social and economic indices, while typologies 2 and 4 had relatively stronger values for environment. These discrepancies support the relevance of integrated farm typology- and CSI approaches in assessing system sustainability and targeting technologies. Universally, for all farm typologies, composite sustainability indices for economic pillar was significantly lower than the social and environment pillars. More than 90% of farmers were in economically less-sustainable class. The correlations between sustainability indices for economic and environment were typology specific. It was strong and positive when aggregated for the whole study systems [all samples (r = 0.183; P < 0.001)] and for agriculture dependent farm typologies (e.g. typologies 1 and 3). This suggests the need to elevate farms economic performance and capacitate them to invest in the environment. These results provide information for policy makers to plan farm typology–context technological interventions and also create baseline information to evaluate sustainability performance in terms of progress made over time.     

Friends with benefits: Social support and its relevance for farm animal welfare

Despite growing interest in promoting positive welfare, rather than just alleviating poor welfare, potential measures of good welfare, and means to provide it, have remained elusive. In humans social support improves stress-coping abilities, health, and promotes positive psychological welfare. Therefore, social support may be a key approach to promote positive physical and psychological welfare in farm animals. However, the roles of positive social behaviors and social support have been overlooked in comparison to negative social behaviors such as agonistic interactions. The benefits of social partners on an animal's stress coping abilities and welfare are yet poorly understood.The purpose of this paper is to review the protective or buffering effects of social support against stressful challenges and its potential implications for farm animal welfare. The biology of social support is first presented with its behavior, endocrine, autonomic and immune components. The major factors modulating the social support process are then synthesized. Research and implications for animal welfare in different farm species are discussed. Lastly, this review identifies research areas that especially deserve further attention in our effort to understand and implement social support in farm animal welfare.Social support could constitute one of the foundations for welfare researchers to leap from the absence of negative welfare to the provision of positive welfare and emotional experiences.     

Animal-based measures on fattening heavy pigs at the slaughterhouse and the association with animal welfare at the farm level: a preliminary study

Monitoring animal welfare (AW) in pig farms requires both proper indicators and a feasible approach. Animal-based measures (ABMs) are well-established AW indicators. Furthermore, AW screening at the slaughterhouses could be useful for identifying problems on farm. The aim of this study was to evaluate ABMs at the slaughterhouse and, when possible, to compare these ABMs with those collected on the farm. The study was carried out in northern Italy in a commercial abattoir and in a sample of farms. Animal-based measures were recorded on pigs from 62 batches of 54 farms, during ante-mortem (n=10 085 pigs) and post-mortem (n=7952 pigs) inspections. Sixteen of 54 farms were selected to compare ABMs collected at the slaughterhouse with ABMs collected on the farm. Overall, 2295 pigs (mean pigs examined per farm 119±45) were inspected at the slaughterhouse (group S) and 420 pigs (mean pigs per farm 26±5) on the farm (group F). Non-animal-based measures were also collected at the 16 farms. Differences between groups S and F, at the animal level, were assessed by a two-tailed paired Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test. Differences at the site of observation level (farm and slaughterhouse) were assessed by Fisher’s exact test using a hierarchical log-linear modelling for contingency tables. The most frequent ABMs at the slaughterhouse were manure on the body (47.7%), followed by dermatitis (28.0%), white spot (25.4%) and bursitis (24.7%). Recording ABMs at the slaughterhouse and on the farm usually yielded similar results; however, there were some exceptions. In particular, significant differences were found for non-uniformity of size (P<0.05) and dermatitis (P<0.001), which were higher at the slaughterhouse than on the farm. Results of log-linear modelling underlined the effect of the farm of origin on the percentage of pigs with bursitis, manure on the body and ear injuries that were observed at the slaughterhouse. In group S, significant associations between manure on the body and insufficient presence of clean and dry areas in the corresponding farm were found (P<0.05). Although these results should be interpreted with care due to the limited sample of farms, the slaughterhouse could be a feasible site of observation of ABMs, which could then be integrated in monitoring of AW on farm. Considering the number of slaughtered batches per farm, it would be possible to repeat assessments several times throughout the year for each farm, which could help provide an index for the continuous monitoring of AW.     

Science and technology of farm animal cloning: state of the art

Details of the first mammal born after nuclear transfer cloning were published by Steen Malte Willadsen in 1986. In spite of its enormous scientific significance, this discovery failed to trigger much public concern, possibly because the donor cells were derived from pre-implantation stage embryos. The major breakthrough in terms of public recognition has happened when Ian Wilmut et al. [Wilmut, I., Schnieke, A.E., McWhir, J., Kind, A.J., Campbell, K.H., 1997. Viable offspring derived from fetal és adult mammalian cells. Nature 385, 810-813] described the successful application of almost exactly the same method, but using the nuclei of somatic cells from an adult mammal, to create Dolly the sheep. It has become theoretically possible to produce an unlimited number of genetic replicates from an adult animal or a post-implantation foetus. Since 1997 a number of different species including pigs, goats, horses, cats, etc. have been cloned with the somatic cell nuclear transfer technique. Although the technology still has relatively low success rates and there seems to be substantial problems with the welfare of some of the cloned animals, cloning is used both within basic research and the biomedical sector. The next step seems to be to implement cloning in the agricultural production system and several animals have been developed in this direction. This article reviews the current state of the art of farm animal cloning from a scientific and technological perspective, describes the animal welfare problems and critically assess different applications of farm animal cloning. The scope is confined to animal biotechnologies in which the use of cell nuclear transfer is an essential part and extends to both biomedical and agricultural applications of farm animal cloning. These applications include the production of genetically identical animals for research purposes, and also the creation of genetically modified animals. In the agricultural sector, cloning can be used as a tool within farm animal breeding. We do not intend to give an exhaustive review of the all the literature available; instead we pinpoint issues and events pivotal to the development of current farm animal cloning practices and their possible applications.     

Water footprint assessment of sheep farming systems based on farm survey data

Water scarcity is among the main challenges making vulnerable the livestock farming systems in drylands. The water footprint (WF) indicator was proposed as a metric to measure the impacts of livestock production on freshwater resources. Therefore, this study aimed to assess water use in five different Tunisian sheep production systems using the Water Footprint Network methodology. The primary data were obtained from 1050 sheep farms located in 13 Tunisian provinces. A multivariate analysis was performed to characterize the different farming systems. A validation step of the WF modeled values of sheep meat was conducted in 12 sheep farms belonging to two different farming systems. This was done through year-round monitoring of on-farm practices using water metres and recording equipment’s taking into account the direct and indirect water use. The typology analysis came up with five sheep farming systems that are the mixed sheep-cereal (MSC), the agro-sylvo-pastoral (ASP), the agro-pastoral (AP), the extensive agro-pastoral (EAP) and the mixed sheep-olive tree farming systems. The WF of sheep meat produced under the target farming systems ranged from 8654 to 13 056 l/kg live weight. The evaluation of WF of five different sheep production systems figured out that sheep raised under the EAP farming system had the greatest WF per ton of live animal. However, the ASP farming system exhibited the lowest WF. Water used to grow feedstuffs for sheep production accounts for 98% of the total WF of sheep. The green WF accounts for more than 92% of the total WF in all farming systems. Results of monitoring water use at farm scale show that the modeled values of WF are overestimated by an average of 23.3% and 24.1% for the selected farms assigned to the MSC and AP farming systems, respectively. Water use for sheep production is high in most of the Tunisian farms. Therefore, the general assumption that ‘meat production is a driver of water scarcity’ is supported and should be considered as an important focal point in agricultural and water policies. Particular attention should be given to forage crops with low WFs and high contribution to dry matter to provide ration with low WF. The efficient use of green water along the meat value chain is essential to minimize the depletion of blue water resources and to reduce the economic dependency on virtual water through the import of feedstuffs.     

Species richness in agroecosystems: the effect of landscape, habitat and farm management

It has been suggested that biodiversity in agroecosystems depends on both landscape heterogeneity and farm management, but at the same time, studies of biodiversity in relation to both landscape variables and farm management are rare. We investigated the species richness of plants, butterflies, carabids, rove beetles and the diversity of spiders in cereal fields, leys (grass and clover crop) and semi-natural pastures at 16 farms in Central East Sweden. The farms were divided into eight pairs of one conventional and one organic farm to enable us to separate the effects of landscape and farm management on biodiversity. The pairing was based on land use, location, and landscape features. Species richness of different taxonomic groups was generally not correlated. There were no differences in species richness between the farming systems, except for carabids that had higher numbers of species on conventional farms. The species richness generally increased with landscape heterogeneity on a farm scale. Habitat type had a major effect on the species richness for most groups, with most species found in pastures and leys. The correlations between species richness and landscape variables on a farm scale, and not on a scale of multiple farms, identify farmers as the important decision-maker in conservation issues for these taxonomic groups. We discuss the role of species richness of pests' natural enemies for biological control and conservation strategies of the more common species in the agricultural landscape.