Validation of a multi-criteria evaluation model for animal welfare

The aim of this paper was to validate an alternative multi-criteria evaluation system to assess animal welfare on farms based on the Welfare Quality® (WQ) project, using an example of welfare assessment of growing pigs. This alternative methodology aimed to be more transparent for stakeholders and more flexible than the methodology proposed by WQ. The WQ assessment protocol for growing pigs was implemented to collect data in different farms in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. In total, 44 observations were carried out. The aggregation system proposed in the WQ protocol follows a three-step aggregation process. Measures are aggregated into criteria, criteria into principles and principles into an overall assessment. This study focussed on the first two steps of the aggregation. Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) was used to produce a value of welfare for each criterion and principle. The utility functions and the aggregation function were constructed in two separated steps. The MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical-Based Evaluation Technique) method was used for utility function determination and the Choquet integral (CI) was used as an aggregation operator. The WQ decision-makers’ preferences were fitted in order to construct the utility functions and to determine the CI parameters. The validation of the MAUT model was divided into two steps, first, the results of the model were compared with the results of the WQ project at criteria and principle level, and second, a sensitivity analysis of our model was carried out to demonstrate the relative importance of welfare measures in the different steps of the multi-criteria aggregation process. Using the MAUT, similar results were obtained to those obtained when applying the WQ protocol aggregation methods, both at criteria and principle level. Thus, this model could be implemented to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare in the context of the WQ protocol for growing pigs. Furthermore, this methodology could also be used as a framework in order to produce an overall assessment of welfare for other livestock species. Two main findings are obtained from the sensitivity analysis, first, a limited number of measures had a strong influence on improving or worsening the level of welfare at criteria level and second, the MAUT model was not very sensitive to an improvement in or a worsening of single welfare measures at principle level. The use of weighted sums and the conversion of disease measures into ordinal scores should be reconsidered.     

Assessment of the multi-criteria evaluation system of the Welfare Quality® protocol for growing pigs

Animal welfare has become an important subject of public and political debate, leading to the necessity of an objective evaluation system for on-farm use. As welfare is a multi-dimensional concept, it makes sense to use a multi-criteria aggregation system to obtain an overall welfare score. Such an aggregation system is provided by the Welfare Quality® Network. The present paper focusses on the assessment of the multi-criteria evaluation model included in the Welfare Quality® protocol for growing pigs in order to aggregate the animal-based indicators first to criteria, then to principles and finally to an overall welfare score. Specifically, the importance of the indicators on the overall assessment of growing pig farms is analysed in a given population which consisted of a total of 198 protocol assessments carried out on a sample of 24 farms in Germany. By means of partial least squares modelling, the influence of measures in the calculation procedure is estimated by calculation and interpretation of Variable Importance for Projection (VIP) scores. Variable Importance for Projection scores revealed some meaningful, unexpected influences as the multi-criteria evaluation model of Welfare Quality® aimed at avoiding interferences and double-counting. Some of these influences led to the assumption that some measures might have potential as iceberg indicators, whereas others showed lesser importance. Thus, feasibility can be gained by the deletion and special weighting of indicators according to their importance. Altogether, the study is an essential contribution to the further development of the Welfare Quality® protocols as well as the application of multi-criteria decision systems in the field of animal welfare science in general.     

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.     

On-farm animal welfare assessment in beef bulls: consistency over time of single measures and aggregated Welfare Quality® scores

Consistency over time of (on-farm) animal welfare assessment systems forms part of reliability, meaning that results of the assessment should be representative of the longer-term welfare state of the farm as long as the housing and management conditions have not changed considerably. This is especially important if assessments are to be used for certification purposes. It was the aim of the present study to investigate consistency over time of the Welfare Quality® (WQ®) assessment system for fattening cattle at single measure level, aggregated criterion and principle scores, and overall classification across short-term (1 month) and longer-term periods (6 months). We hypothesized that consistency over time of aggregated criterion and principle scores is higher than that of single measures. Consistency was also expected to be lower with longer intervals between assessments. Data were obtained using the WQ® protocol for fattening cattle during three visits (months 0, 1 and 7) on 63 beef farms in Austria, Germany and Italy. Only data from farms where no major changes in housing and management had taken place were considered for analysis. At the single measure level, Spearman rank correlations between visits were >0.7 and variance was lower within farms than between farms for six and two of 19 measures after 1 month and 6 months, respectively. After aggregation of single measures into criterion and principle scores, five and two of 10 criteria and three and one of four principles were found reliable after 1 and 6 months, respectively. At the WQ® principle level, this was the case for three and one of four principles. Seventy-nine per cent and 75% of the farms were allocated to the same overall welfare category after 1 month and 6 months. Possible reasons for a lack of consistency are seasonal effects or short-term fluctuations that occur under normal farm conditions, low prevalence of clinical measures and probably insufficient sample size, whereas poor inter-observer agreement leading to inflation of correlation can be ruled out. At the criterion and principle level, aggregation of information into scores appears to partly smoothen undirected variation at the single measure level without losing sensitivity in terms of welfare evaluation. Reliable on-farm animal welfare assessments should therefore be based on repeated assessments. Further long-term studies are recommended to better understand the factors influencing consistency over time.     

Navigating the iceberg: reducing the number of parameters within the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for dairy cows

The Welfare Quality® protocols provide a multidimensional assessment of welfare, which is lengthy, and hence limited in terms of practicality. The aim of this study was to investigate potential ‘iceberg indicators’ which could reliably predict the overall classification as a means of reducing the length of time for an assessment and so increase the feasibility of the Welfare Quality® protocol as a multidimensional assessment of welfare. Full Welfare Quality® assessments were carried out on 92 dairy farms in England and Wales. The farms were all classified as Acceptable or Enhanced. Logistic regression models with cross validation were used to compare model fit for the overall classification on farms. ‘Absence of prolonged thirst’, on its own, was found to correctly classify farms 88% of the time. More generally, the inclusion of more measures in the models was not associated with greater predictive ability for the overall classification. Absence of prolonged thirst could thus, in theory, be considered to be an iceberg indicator for the Welfare Quality® protocol, and could reduce the length of time for a farm assessment to 15 min. Previous work has shown that the parameters within the Welfare Quality® protocol are important and relevant for welfare assessment. However, it is argued that the credibility of the published aggregation system is compromised by the finding that one resource measure (Absence of prolonged thirst) is a major driver for the overall classification. It is therefore suggested that the prominence of Absence of prolonged thirst in this role may be better understood as an unintended consequence of the published measure aggregation system rather than as reflecting a realistic iceberg indicator.     

Simplifying the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for broiler chicken welfare

Welfare Quality® (WQ) assessment protocols place the emphasis on animal-based measures as an indicator for animal welfare. Stakeholders, however, emphasize that a reduction in the time taken to complete the protocol is essential to improve practical applicability. We studied the potential for reduction in time to complete the WQ broiler assessment protocol and present some modifications to the protocol correcting a few errors in the original calculations. Data was used from 180 flocks assessed on-farm and 150 flocks assessed at the slaughter plant. Correlations between variables were calculated, and where correlation was moderate, meaningful and promising (in terms of time reduction), simplification was considered using one variable predicted from another variable. Correlation analysis revealed a promising correlation between severe hock burn and gait scores on-farm. Therefore, prediction of gait scores using hock burn scores was studied further as a possible simplification strategy (strategy 1). Measurements of footpad dermatitis, hock burn, cleanliness and gait score on-farm correlated moderately to highly with slaughter plant measurements of footpad dermatitis and/or hock burn, supporting substitution of on-farm measurements with slaughter plant data. A simplification analysis was performed using footpad dermatitis, hock burn, cleanliness and gait scores measured on-farm predicted from slaughter plant measurements of footpad dermatitis and hock burn (strategy 2). Simplification strategies were compared with the full assessment protocol. Close agreement was found between the full protocol and both simplification strategies although large confidence intervals were found for specificity of the simplified models. It is concluded that the proposed simplification strategies are encouraging; strategy 1 can reduce the time to complete the on-farm assessment by ~1 h (25% to 33% reduction) and strategy 2 can reduce on-farm assessment time by ~2 h (50% to 67% reduction). Both simplification strategies should, however, be validated further, and tested on farms with a wide distribution across the different welfare categories of WQ.     

Sensitivity of the Welfare Quality® broiler chicken protocol to differences between intensively reared indoor flocks: which factors explain overall classification?

There is a large demand for holistic welfare assessment systems that result in a singular balanced summary of welfare. The Welfare Quality® (WQ) broiler protocol summarizes 18 welfare measures into four principles (‘good feeding’, ‘good housing’, ‘good health’ and ‘appropriate behaviour’), which are then integrated into one overall category (‘excellent’, ‘enhanced’, ‘acceptable’ or ‘not classified’). But the protocol is time consuming which hampers implementation. Furthermore, WQ’s aim to assess animal welfare in a wide range of husbandry systems may decrease its ability to discriminate between flocks from the same system. We applied the protocol in the context of intensive indoor rearing to assess whether it discriminated sufficiently between flocks, could be shortened without losing essential information, and provided a balanced summary of welfare. The vast majority of the flocks (88%) received the same overall classification (acceptable) whilst all other flocks received an adjacent classification (enhanced), suggesting poor discriminative capacity. For 95% of the flocks overall classification was explained by two measures only (‘drinker space’ and ‘stocking density’). A system based on these two measures would reduce assessment time from 3.5 h to a few minutes. However, both measures’ validity can be questioned as they are risk factors for poor welfare rather than animal-based outcome measures and they suffer from methodological weaknesses. Furthermore, the possibility for such an extreme simplification raises doubts on whether the overall classification reflects a balanced summary of different welfare aspects. In line with this, overall classification was not affected by replacing single measures within the ‘good health’ and ‘appropriate behaviour’ principles with realistically attainable minima or maxima for intensively reared flocks. Even replacing either of these two principles entirely with their realistically obtainable minimum or maximum did not affect classification. Such insensitivity to change may discourage attempts to improve the welfare of intensively reared flocks when assessments are made based on the overall classification. This calls for an adjustment of the classification system, which is currently being developed by the Welfare Quality Network.     

Assessment of vulnerability to climate change using a multi-criteria outranking approach with application to heat stress in Sydney

Climate change vulnerability assessment is a complex form of risk assessment which accounts for both geophysical and socio-economic components of risk. In indicator-based vulnerability assessment (IBVA), indicators are used to rank the vulnerabilities of socio-ecological systems (SESs). The predominant aggregation approach in the literature, sometimes based on multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), typically builds a global-scale, utility function based on weighted summation, to generate rankings. However, the corresponding requirement for additive independence and complete knowledge of system interactions by analyst are rarely if ever satisfied in IBVA.We build an analogy between the structures of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and IBVA problems and show that a set of techniques called Outranking Methods, developed in MCDA to deal with criteria incommensurability, data uncertainty and preference imprecision, offer IBVA a sound alternative to additive or multiplicative aggregation. We reformulate IBVA problems within an outranking framework, define thresholds of difference and use an outranking method, ELECTRE III, to assess the relative vulnerability to heat stress of 15 local government areas in metropolitan Sydney. We find that the ranking outcomes are robust and argue that an outranking approach is better suited for assessments characterized by a mix of qualitative, semi-quantitative and quantitative indicators, threshold effects and uncertainties about the exact relationships between indicators and vulnerability.     

Scientists' Assessment of the Impact of Housing and Management on Animal Welfare

A total of 22 scientists contributed to a consensus-oriented conceptual framework for assessment of farm animal welfare, addressing priority issues in cattle, pigs, and chickens. They used the Delphi method, in which participants contributed anonymously through e-mail. The framework puts welfare in an evolutionary context. Welfare problems arise when animals are kept in environments to which they have difficulty adapting. For integrated welfare assessment, design criteria and welfare performance criteria must be used in which the former may be weighted based on the latter, which, in turn, may be weighted based on the aspects of intensity, duration, and incidence. The main performance criteria were pathological states, abnormal behaviors, and behavioral restrictions. Space, social conditions, and substrates were the main design criteria. Conventional housing systems generally ranked lower than alternative systems. In this article, we show that a broad consensus basis exists among welfare scientists concerning the assessment of farm animal welfare.     

Scientists' Assessment of the Impact of Housing and Management on Animal Welfare

A total of 22 scientists contributed to a consensus-oriented conceptual framework for assessment of farm animal welfare, addressing priority issues in cattle, pigs, and chickens. They used the Delphi method, in which participants contributed anonymously through e-mail. The framework puts welfare in an evolutionary context. Welfare problems arise when animals are kept in environments to which they have difficulty adapting. For integrated welfare assessment, design criteria and welfare performance criteria must be used in which the former may be weighted based on the latter, which, in turn, may be weighted based on the aspects of intensity, duration, and incidence. The main performance criteria were pathological states, abnormal behaviors, and behavioral restrictions. Space, social conditions, and substrates were the main design criteria. Conventional housing systems generally ranked lower than alternative systems. In this article, we show that a broad consensus basis exists among welfare scientists concerning the assessment of farm animal welfare.     

Welfare effects of a disease eradication programme for dairy goats

The Norwegian dairy goat industry has largely succeeded in controlling caprine arthritis encephalitis (CAE), caseous lymphadenitis (CLA) and paratuberculosis through a voluntary disease eradication programme called Healthier Goats (HG). The aim of this study was to apply an on-farm welfare assessment protocol to assess the effects of HG on goat welfare. A total of 30 dairy goat farms were visited, of which 15 had completed disease eradication and 15 had not yet started. Three trained observers assessed the welfare on 10 farms each. The welfare assessment protocol comprised both resource-based and animal-based welfare measures, including a preliminary version of qualitative behavioural assessments with five prefixed terms. A total of 20 goats in each herd were randomly selected for observations of human–animal interactions and physical health. The latter included registering abnormalities of eyes, nostrils, ears, skin, lymph nodes, joints, udder, claws and body condition score. For individual-level data, robust clustered logistic regression analyses with farm as cluster variable were conducted to assess the association with disease eradication. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for comparisons of herd-level data between the two groups. Goats with swollen joints (indicative of CAE) and enlarged lymph nodes (indicative of CLA) were registered on 53% and 93% of the non-HG farms, respectively, but on none of the HG farms. The only other health variables with significantly lower levels in HG herds were skin lesions (P=0.008) and damaged ears due to torn out ear tags (P<0.001). Goats on HG farms showed less fear of unknown humans (P=0.013), and the qualitative behavioural assessments indicated that the animals in these herds were calmer than in non-HG herds. Significantly more space and lower gas concentrations reflected the upgrading of buildings usually done on HG farms. In conclusion, HG has resulted in some welfare improvements beyond the elimination of infectious diseases. The protocol was considered a useful tool to evaluate the welfare consequences of a disease eradication programme. However, larger sample sizes would increase the reliability of prevalence estimates for less common conditions and increase the power to detect differences between the groups. Despite the obvious link between disease and suffering, this aspect is rarely taken into account in the evaluation of disease control programmes. We therefore propose that welfare assessment protocols should be applied to evaluate the merits of disease control or eradication programmes in terms of animal welfare.     

The ‘Real Welfare’ scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs

Animal welfare standards have been incorporated in EU legislation and in farm assurance schemes, based on scientific information and aiming to safeguard the welfare of the species concerned. Recently, emphasis has shifted from resource-based measures of welfare to animal-based measures, which are considered to assess more accurately the welfare status. The data used in this analysis were collected from April 2013 to May 2016 through the ‘Real Welfare’ scheme in order to assess on-farm pig welfare, as required for those finishing pigs under the UK Red Tractor Assurance scheme. The assessment involved five main measures (percentage of pigs requiring hospitalization, percentage of lame pigs, percentage of pigs with severe tail lesions, percentage of pigs with severe body marks and enrichment use ratio) and optional secondary measures (percentage of pigs with mild tail lesions, percentage of pigs with dirty tails, percentage of pigs with mild body marks, percentage of pigs with dirty bodies), with associated information about the environment and the enrichment in the farms. For the complete database, a sample of pens was assessed from 1928 farm units. Repeated measures were taken in the same farm unit over time, giving 112 240 records at pen level. These concerned a total of 13 480 289 pigs present on the farm during the assessments, with 5 463 348 pigs directly assessed using the ‘Real Welfare’ protocol. The three most common enrichment types were straw, chain and plastic objects. The main substrate was straw which was present in 67.9% of the farms. Compared with 2013, a significant increase of pens with undocked-tail pigs, substrates and objects was observed over time (P<0.05). The upper quartile prevalence was <0.2% for all of the four main physical outcomes, and 15% for mild body marks. The percentage of pigs that would benefit from being in a hospital pen was positively correlated to the percentage of lame pigs, and the absence of tail lesions was positively correlated with the absence of body marks (P<0.05, R>0.3). The results from the first 3 years of the scheme demonstrate a reduction of the prevalence of animal-based measures of welfare problems and highlight the value of this initiative.     

The welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems: assessment of feeding and housing

Ninety-one farms were visited over a 2-year period to assess the welfare of growing pigs in five different production systems found either in France or in Spain using the Welfare Quality® protocol. This study focused on animal-based measures as indicators of ‘good feeding’ and ‘good housing’. Multiple Generalized Linear Mixed Models were performed for each measure to evaluate the differences between production systems and to detect possible causal factors. Pigs in the conventional system presented the lowest prevalence of poor body condition, whereas extensive Mallorcan Black pigs and extensive Iberian pigs were associated with a decreased prevalence of bursitis and pig dirtiness. The straw-bedded system presented a lower prevalence of bursitis, but poorer hygiene and more susceptibility of poor body condition than the conventional system. The age of the animals had a significant effect on the appearance of bursitis in the three intensive systems studied. The type of floor was a significant causal factor of bursitis and pig dirtiness in the conventional system and among intensive Iberian pigs. The feeding system was another causal factor of pig dirtiness on more than 50% of the body in the conventional system, whereas pig dirtiness on less than 50% of the body was influenced by the age of the animals. The prevalence of huddling animals in the conventional system was associated with the highest stocking densities and the lowest environmental temperatures. The results indicate that there were important differences between production systems based on animal-based indicators of the good feeding and housing principles. The recording of the age of the animals, type of floor, feeding system, stocking density and environmental temperature can be useful to predict the appearance of a given welfare measure of ‘good housing’ on a farm.     

The effects of farming systems (organic vs. conventional) on dairy cow welfare,based on the Welfare Quality® protocol

Animal welfare in livestock production is of great interest to consumers. The organic farming approach strives to ensure animal welfare based on preventive measures, but there are very few scientific studies that compare the actual differences in animal welfare between organic and conventional farms. Those studies that have been carried out frequently focus on specific aspects of animal welfare, mostly health issues. The aim of the present study, therefore, was to investigate the effects of the farming system on the welfare of dairy cows in a more holistic way. Although this study was carried out in just two federal states of Germany, the results could serve as a suitable model for the whole country. We used the Welfare Quality assessment protocol to measure welfare for dairy cattle (Welfare Quality®, 2009) and the results showed significant differences (P < 0.05) between organic and conventional farms, but there was also considerable variance between individual farms of the same farming system. Organic farms scored higher in all four Welfare Quality® principles: “Good Feeding”, “Good Housing”, “Good Health” and “Appropriate Behavior” compared to conventional farms. In particular, organic farms obtained higher scores with respect to Welfare Quality® measures of resting comfort, which contributes to a lower percentage of lameness; organic farms also implemented less painful methods for disbudding, or indeed carried out no disbudding, and provided access to pasture and outdoor exercise. However, organic farms still have room for improvement, especially with respect to animal health. Therefore, outcome‐based specifications should be included in the current (purely action-oriented) European regulation of organic production (EC, 2008; EU, 2018) to safeguard the health‐related aspects of animal welfare.     

Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: analysis of constraints

The overall assessment of animal welfare is a multicriterion evaluation problem that needs a constructive strategy to compound information produced by many measures. The construction depends on specific features such as the concept of welfare, the measures used and the way data are collected. Welfare is multidimensional and one dimension probably cannot fully compensate for another one (e.g. good health cannot fully compensate for behavioural deprivation). Welfare measures may vary in precision, relevance and their relative contribution to an overall welfare assessment. The data collected are often expressed on ordinal scales, which limits the use of weighted sums to aggregate them. A sequential aggregation is proposed in the Welfare Quality® project, first from measures to welfare criteria (corresponding to dimensions with pre-set objectives) and then to an overall welfare assessment, using rules determined at each level depending on the nature and number of variables to be considered and the level of compensation to be permitted. Scientific evidence and expert opinion are used to refine the model, and stakeholders’ approval of general principles is sought. This approach could potentially be extended to other problems in agriculture such as the overall assessment of the sustainability of production systems.     

Monitoring the welfare of sheep in organic and conventional farms using an ANI 35 L derived method

The present study was undertaken to evaluate the inter-observer reliability of a welfare monitoring scheme to be applied to sheep, and compare the welfare state of the animals between 10 organic and 10 conventional sheep farms. Two trained observers performed recordings. A graded point protocol was used, that relies on five sheets mostly derived by the Animal Needs Index, which is mainly based on resource-based parameters. Therefore, in the fifth sheet animal-based parameters, deemed relevant to sheep welfare, were taken into account. In particular, the following animal-based variables were assessed: integument alterations, animal dirtiness, hoof overgrowth, lameness and lesions, which where scored on the basis of their prevalence (number of affected animals/numbers of observed animals), longevity (age in years), and mutilations, such as de-horning and caudotomy, evaluated in terms of presence/absence. No significant differences were observed between organic and conventional farms in terms of ANI scores, housing characteristics and animal-based parameters. This result was not surprising, as most of the farms, both conventional and organic, based their farming systems on an extensive use of the land by grazing animals. The monitoring protocol proved to be feasible (the mean time needed to perform the assessment of welfare was 85 min per farm) and reliable: a significant Spearman's correlation coefficient between observers was observed for total score and all sheets. As to animal-based parameters, body condition could not be assessed visually due to the presence of flee in winter; the correlation between observers was significant for integument alterations, animal dirtiness, hoof overgrowth and lameness, whereas inter-observer reliability was not significant for lesions. This result indicated that more training is needed for the assessment of lesions in order to increase the reliability of the measure. In addition, we suggest visiting farms in early summer, soon after shearing, in order to make easier the detection of lesions and the assessment of body condition.     

Co-construction of an assessment method of the environmental sustainability for cattle farms involved in a Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) cheese value chain,Cantal PDO

In France, numerous Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) cheese value chains have revised their specifications to address environmental protection, particularly at the farm level. In this stage, it is nevertheless impossible to state whether the proposed modifications may ensure the sustainability of environmental protection as no environmental sustainability diagnostic has been conducted. The aim of this study is to construct an assessment method for the Cantal PDO farms.A multi-criteria assessment approach was implemented in the following 5 steps: definition of the framework of the study, determination of the principles and criteria, definition of the indicators, aggregation of all elements of the assessment, and finally, test of the assessment method on farms. Focus groups meetings were organised for the first four steps. The panel discussions were based on data obtained from both the literature and surveys of stakeholders operating in the value chain and within the territory.The obtained assessment method comprises 4 principles characterised by 33 indicators. The most important principle (45%), management of grassland resources, is a key economic and environmental point of the studied farms. It reflects the necessary intensive use of grass by the animals in the PDO farms. Few existing methods addressed this principle that required the design of several new indicators. The second principle, impact of agricultural practices (25%), is often included in environmental sustainability assessment methods The adopted indicators are, thus, drawn from existing methods and adapted to the context of the farms studied. The management of the farm buildings and the landscape principle (18%) is often considered in social sustainability. Its role in environmental sustainability can be explained by its strong link with the image of PDO products. Primarily drawn from the literature, the used indicators have been extended to make the assessment method as objective as possible. Finally, the management of local, energy and water resources principle has the lowest weighting (12%). This can be explained by the limited number of indicators.This assessment method was constructed for the Cantal PDO farms by considering their environment and particularities. In consequence, the stakeholders have taken ownership of it. It could be used by other ruminant systems based on grassland. The development of numerous indicators enhanced the pool of existing indicators. This assessment method was sensitive and allowed for the discrimination between farms.     

Combining Material Flow Analysis,Life Cycle Assessment,and Multiattribute Utility Theory

Three assessment methods, material flow analysis (MFA), life cycle analysis (LCA), and multiattribute utility theory (MAUT) are systematically combined for supporting the choice of best end‐of‐life scenarios for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) waste in a municipality of a developing country. MFA analyzes the material and energy balance of a firm, a region, or a nation, identifying the most relevant processes; LCA evaluates multiple environmental impacts of a product or a service from cradle to grave; and MAUT allows for inclusion of other aspects along with the ecological ones in the assessment. We first systematically coupled MFA and LCA by defining “the service offered by the total PET used during one year in the region” as the functional unit. Inventory and impacts were calculated by multiplying MFA flows with LCA impacts per kilogram. We used MAUT to include social and economic aspects in the assessment. To integrate the subjective point of view of stakeholders in the MAUT, we normalized the environmental, social, and economic variables with respect to the magnitude of overall impacts or benefits in the country. The results show large benefits for recycling scenarios from all points of view and also provide information about waste treatment optimization. The combination of the three assessment methods offers a powerful integrative assessment of impacts and benefits. Further research should focus on data collection methods to easily determine relevant material flows. LCA impact factors specific to Colombia should be developed, as well as more reliable social indicators.     

Effects of three husbandry systems on health,welfare and productivity of organic pigs

Organic pig husbandry systems in Europe are diverse – ranging from indoor systems with concrete outside run (IN) to outdoor systems all year round (OUT) and combinations of both on one farm (POUT). As this diversity has rarely been taken into account in research projects on organic pig production, the aim of this study was to assess and compare pig health, welfare and productivity in these three systems. Animal health and welfare were assessed using direct observation and records of 22 animal-based measures, comprising 17 health-, 3 productivity- and 2 behavioural measures. These were collected in pregnant sows, weaners and fattening pigs during direct observations and from records within a cross-sectional study on 74 farms (IN: n = 34, POUT: n = 28, OUT: n = 12) in eight countries. Overall, prevalence of several animal health and welfare issues was low (e.g. median 0% for pigs needing hospitalisation, shoulder lesions, ectoparasites; <5% for runts, tail lesions, conjunctivitis). Exceptions in particular systems were respiratory problems in weaners and fatteners (IN: 60.0%, 66.7%; POUT: 66.7%, 60.0%), weaning diarrhoea (IN: 25.0%), and short tails in fatteners (IN: 6.5%, POUT: 2.3%). Total suckling piglet losses (recorded over a period of 12 months per farm) were high in all three systems (IN: 21.3%; POUT: 21.6; OUT: 19.2%). OUT had lower prevalences of respiratory problems, diarrhoea and lameness of sows. POUT farms in most cases kept sows outdoors and weaners and fatteners similar to IN farms, which was reflected in the results regarding several health and welfare parameters. It can be concluded, that European organic pigs kept in all three types of husbandry system showed a low prevalence of health and welfare problems as assessed by our methodology, but respiratory health and diarrhoea should be improved in weaners and fatteners kept indoors and total piglet mortality in all systems. The results provide benchmarks for organic pig producers and organisations which can be used in strategies to promote health and welfare improvement. Furthermore, in future research, the identified health and welfare issues (e.g. suckling piglet mortality, weaning diarrhoea) should be addressed, specifically considering effects of husbandry systems.