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.     

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.     

Short communication: Evaluation of the sample size of individual indicators in gestating sows concerning the Welfare Quality® protocol applied to sows and piglets

Sample sizes of welfare assessment protocols must warrant to reflect prevalences on-farm properly – regardless of farm size. Still, solely a fixed sample size was specified for the Welfare Quality® protocol for sows and piglets. The present study investigated whether animals may be assessed from only one body side as applied in the protocol and whether the pre-set sample size of 30 animals mirrors the prevalences of the animal-based indicators on-farm in the gestation unit considering different farm sizes. All indicators were assessed for both sides of an animal’s body by one observer on 13 farms in Germany, which were visited five times within 10 months. The farm visits were treated as independent since different animals were housed in the gestation units. The number of sows in the gestation units varied between 18 and 549 animals. The comparison of sides was carried out calculating exact agreement between animals’ sides and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test (W). The results signified that it is sufficient to assess the animal from one side (exact agreement: 88.3% to 99.5%, except for bursitis (70.0%); W: P-values 0.14 to 0.92). However, if side preferences existed in the indicator bursitis a potential bias must be considered. In the following, the sample size was evaluated by comparing samples’ prevalences against true prevalence, that is, the prevalence of all observed animals in the gestation unit in each farm visit. Therefore, subsets of data were generated by applying simple random sampling without replacement. The samples randomly included the animals’ right or left sides. Linear regression was rated as appropriate provided: coefficient of determination R² ≥ 0.90, slope = 1 and intercept = 0 signifying exact agreement. The results revealed that the sample size required by the protocol and the application of calculation formulas are solely appropriate to mirror the prevalences of frequent indicators in the gestation unit, for example, bursitis (mean prevalence 34.4%). Using a proportion of animals, for example, a sample of 30% of all observed animals in a farm visit, pointed out that proportions must increase with indicators’ underlying prevalence narrowing 0.00%. Local infections (mean prevalence 13.3%) needed samples including 60% of all observed animals in each farm visit, whereas vulva lesions (mean prevalence 7.28%) only reached accuracy with the inclusion of 70% of the animals. Indicators with a mean prevalence of <1% were not analysed but can most likely only be ascertained by the assessment of all animals.     

Birds as surrogates for mammals and reptiles: Are patterns of cross-taxonomic associations stable over time in a human-modified landscape?

Cross-taxonomic surrogates can be feasible alternatives to direct measurements of biodiversity in conservation if validated with robust data and used with explicit goals. However, few studies of cross-taxonomic surrogates have examined how temporal changes in composition or richness in one taxon can drive variation in concordant patterns of diversity in another taxon, particularly in a dynamic and heavily modified landscape. We examined this problem by assessing changes in cross-taxonomic associations over time between the surrogate (birds) and target vertebrate taxa (mammals, reptiles) that demand high sampling effort, in a heterogeneous mosaic landscape comprising pine monoculture, eucalypt woodland remnants and agricultural land. Focussing on four study years (1999, 2001, 2011, 2013) from a dataset spanning 15 years, we: (1) investigated temporal changes in cross-taxonomic congruency among three animal taxa, (2) explored how temporal variation in composition and species richness of each taxon might account for variation in cross-taxonomic congruency, and (3) identified habitat structural variables that are strongly correlated with species composition of each taxon. We found the strength of cross-taxonomic congruency varied between taxa in response to both landscape context and over time. Among the three taxa, overall correlations were weak but were consistently positive and strongest between birds and mammals, while correlations involving reptiles were usually weak and negative. We also found that stronger species richness and composition correlations between birds and mammals were not only more prevalent in woodland remnants in the agricultural matrix, but they also increased in strength over time. Temporal shifts in species composition differed in rate and extent among the taxa even though these changes were significant over time, while important habitat structural correlates were seldom shared across taxa. Our study highlights the role of the landscape matrix and time in shaping animal communities and the resulting cross-taxonomic associations in the woodland remnants, especially after a major perturbation event (i.e. plantation establishment). In such dynamic landscapes, differing and taxon-specific shifts in diversity over time can influence the strength, direction and consistency of cross-taxonomic correlations, therefore posing a ‘temporal’ problem for the use of surrogates like birds in monitoring and assessments of biodiversity, and conservation management practices.