brightanimal project, tartu 2010 the virtuous bicycle: a delivery vehicle for improved animal...
TRANSCRIPT
BrightAnimal Project, Tartu 2010
The Virtuous Bicycle: A Delivery Vehicle for improved Animal Welfare
John WebsterUniversity of Bristol,
Emeritus
Precision livestock farming• Health, environment, welfare and behaviour
– Gather information –monitoring– Use the information – strategic planning– Improve the system – evidence of effective action– Reward improvements – increased recognition, value
Monitoring: elements of good husbandry and animal welfare
Provision HUSBANDRY
Outcome WELFARE
MANAGEMENT procedures stockmanship
RESOURCES food accommodation
RECORDS health fertility
FITNESS FEELINGS
Aim of husbandry/aspiration of animal“Wellbeing”
‘Fit and happy’• sustained physical and mental health
-absence of disease-absence of suffering (e.g.pain, fear, exhaustion)
•feeling good (‘happy’)-comfort, companionship, security
Freedoms and Provisions (FAWC)
• Freedom from hunger and thirst: • access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and
vigour
• Freedom from discomfort: • a suitable environment: .e.g. shelter and a comfortable resting
place
• Freedom from pain, injury and disease: • prevention and/or rapid diagnosis and treatment
• Freedom from fear and stress: • ensure conditions which avoid mental suffering
• Freedom to express normal behaviour: • ensure sufficient space, proper facilities and social contact
Welfare Quality: criteria & subcriteriaWelfare criteria Welfare subcriteria
Good feedingAbsence of prolonged hunger
Absence of prolonged thirst
Good housing
Comfort around resting
Thermal comfort
Ease of movement
Good health
Absence of injuries
Absence of disease
Absence of pain induced by management procedures
Appropriate behaviour3
Expression of social behaviours
Expression of other behaviours
Good human-animal relationship
Absence of general fear
Risk/benefit assessment in animal welfare
Factors“Hazards”
Management, environment, phenotype?
“RISKS” improve impair
EFFECTS (adverse)
Thermal stress dehydration pain fear exhaustion disease
Hyper/hypothermia “skin pinch” ———— behaviour —----
INDICATORS OF WELFAREimprove impair
OVERALL WELFARE ?
Monitoring welfare state on farm
Outcome measures should– be quantifiable, repeatable & robust
- integrate consequences of past husbandry
- where possible “triangulate” different elements of physical and mental welfare
- be realistic
minimise disturbance to animals and farm routines
avoid obeisance to quasi-scientific objectivity
The Bristol Welfare Assurance Programme
• Bristol protocols for animal-based assessment of farm animal welfare
• Examples– Dairy cows– ‘Free range’ hens
www.vetschool.bristol.ac.uk/animalwelfare
Monitoring: dairy cows
• Nutrition – (digestion & metabolism)• Body condition, rumen
• Fertility - records
• Mastitis – records • Lameness – locomotion & lesion scores
• External appearance – hocks, knees
• Behaviour – resting time• Standing up/lying down in cubicles
Monitoring welfare: farmer communicationFreedom to express normal behaviour:Example: Rising restriction during housing
Observation: A cow will normally rock in a forward lunge of 60 cm then raise the rear end first, moving a front foot forward, finally lifting the shoulders and head, all in a single fluid movement. Record if cows show severe rising restriction: e.g. performing behaviours such as rocking repeatedly, turning their heads sideways, dipping their heads as they stand, standing foot feet first, or hitting fittings during rising. Methodology: If possible observe 10 animals standing up. Try to observe cows that rise voluntarily; do not force the animals to stand. If more than one group is involved, take a representative sample of animals from each group. Farmer significance: Are cows having difficulty when rising or lying down? Cows are more likely to sustain injuries in areas such as the hips and ribs when they are too large for the cubicles. Severe restriction in the lying area may discourage cows from lying down. Reduced lying time is known to be a high risk for lameness, especially in heifers. Space restriction may be caused by factors such as cubicle design, yard design or stocking density.
Cattle (foot) lameness
• Sole injury– Haemorrhage/ulceration– White line disease
• Monitors– Locomotion score
• visual• weightbearing
– Lesions• at routine foot trimming
• Skin infections– Digital dermatitis– “foul”
• Monitors– Behaviour
• Locomotion (?)
• “Paddling in parlour”
– Lesions• “cold air observation”
The Seven Steps of HACCP
Generic SpecificIdentify hazards & outcomes Delphi review
Identify tangible hazards Identify tangible hazardsCharacterise proximate hazardsLameness and lesions protocols Score lameness & lesions
Assess risks Assess importance of hazards Score risks on farmIdentify CCPs Prioritise proximate risks Prioritise actionsEstablish critical limits Set practical targets Set practical targetsIdentify monitoring procedures Generic protocols Famer/vet agreed protocolsEstablish action procedures Famer/vet agreed protocols
Review outcomes: Plan B?Verify effectiveness Establish review programme Quarterly review
Modify LCP as necessary Modify on-farm LCP as necessary
Examples of proximate & tangible hazards
Proximate hazards“At foot”
Tangible hazards“On farm”
EnvironmentalProlonged standing on concreteFactors that cause claw traumaWet slurry underfootProlonged standing in slurry
Bad cubicles, time in collection yardRough, broken concreteSlurry remaining after scraping
ManagementalBreaches of biosecurityPoor claw shape in early lactationPoor foot care before calvingInadequate lameness detection/treatment
Open herd, contract foot trimmers?Overgrown claws, no foot trimmingDD before calving
AnimalRumen disordersHeifer phenotype/ condition
Poor transition diet, excess concentrate in dairy ration
Significant associations between Proximate Hazards and Foot Lesions
Environmental Managemental
Sole ulcer minus SOCC plus SOCC
Prolonged standing in slurryProlonged standing in slurry SOCC
White line disease minus SOCC plus SOCC
Prolonged standing on concreteProlonged standing on concrete SOCC
Digital dermatitis minus SOCC plus SOCC
Wet slurry underfootWet slurry underfoot
Poor D/T lamenessPoor D/T lamenessSOCC
Significant associations between proximate hazards, unsoundness and severe lameness
Proximate hazard UnsoundMinus SOCC Plus SOCC
Severely lameMinus SOCC Plus SOCC
Environmental Claw trauma hazardsWet slurry Wet slurry Wet slurry Wet slurry
Managemental SOCCPoor D/T lame
Biosecurity SOCCPoor D/T lame Poor D/T lamePoor D/T DD
Animal (none significant) (none significant)
Effects of early interventionDavid Tisdall, DCBT scholar
To quantify the benefits of early detection and treatment of lameness in dairy cows in order to facilitate farmers and vets in making informed decisions about case selection and treatment.
Early threshold treatment: – treatment of a new lameness case when a cow has been mobility score 2 for less than 2 weeks.
Conventional treatment: - treatment of any lameness case by or at the request of the farmer.
Initial findings: DCBT project
• A more RAPID recovery - 74% of “early threshold” treated lame cows mobility scored within 2 weeks of treatment had recovered (81% within 4 weeks).
• A more SUSTAINED recovery – the prevalence of mobility score 2 cows was 20-32% for 200 days after “early threshold” treatment (over 50% in the “conventional” treatment group).
Hens: animal-based measures
Attitude Activity Physical Welfare
Arousal Flight distance Novel object Noise
Feather pecking Aggression Use of range (Pariahs)
Feather loss Body condition Mortality Comb colour (Injuries)
Fl;
Attitude: arousal, noise, FD, NOVOB
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Aro
usal
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28
1.3
1.5
1.8
2
2.3
2.5
2.8
3
3.3
3.5
3.8
Nois
e
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
FD
mean
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 282
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
NO
VO
B
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28
Arousal and Mood:x = calm - aroused, y = confident - anxious, blue =
NOVOB, open = FD
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Aggression, feather pecking & feather loss
Measure Aggression Feather peck Feather loss
Nest houseLitterRange
0.20*0.430.44
3.514.552.57
3.663.442.40
Age, 36w 52w 70w
0.18*0.36*0.86*
3.953.763.16
0.71*2.41*4.02*
Range
Correlations between attitude, activity and physical welfare
Arousal Aggression F-peck
Aggression F-peck F-loss (total) F-loss (severe) Mortality
0.35 0.42 0.58 0.68 0.29
n.s. 0.58 0.53 n.s.
n.s.
n.s. n.s. 0.26
Free range hens: conclusions
• Protocol robust– no significant between observer variation
• Welfare on most farms was satisfactory– 22 ‘calm’, 3 ‘anxious’
• ‘Attitude’ best assessed by Arousal and NOVOB• Arousal, aggression but not F-peck increased with time• ‘F-peck’ related to arousal but not aggression or F-loss!• ‘High anxiety’ flocks show reduced physical welfare
Effects of housing and husbandry: conclusions
• Flock size (3,000-16,000) size,arousal, NOVOB
• Stocking density (9.0-12.3 /sq.m) SD,arousal, feather loss
• Resources– feeders, drinkers, nest box all n.s.
• Perches and floor type (wood or wire v. plastic)– NP,Pl arousal, (aggression), feather loss, range use
Monitoring transport
Hazards Vehicle - design, “navigation”, thermal environment sudden motionHaulier – training. Loading skills
“RISKS” impair
EFFECTS (adverse)
Thermal stress dehydration pain fear exhaustion disease
Hyper/hypothermia “skin pinch” ———— behaviour —----
INDICATORS OF WELFARE impair
OVERALL WELFARE ?
Interpretation and integration of welfare assessments
• To achieve effective action by farmer– Prioritised, farm-specific solutions
• To meet standards of QA Scheme– Five freedoms/ four WQ criteria?
• To promote QA Scheme to consumers– pass/fail – no great appeal– ‘superior’ labels – e.g Freedom Foods
Actions for farm animal welfare
• On farm– animal health and welfare plan
– independent monitoring of welfare outcomes
– effective attention to risks to welfare
– review and reward
• Beyond the farm gate– increased consumer awareness
– promotion of added value, high welfare goods
– Build up of trust from evidence-based assurances
Welfare Quality:Progressive evaluation structure
Measu
res
Cri
teri
aOverall assessment
Pri
nci
ple
s~30
on-farm measures developed by
animal scientists
Advice to farmers
4main independent
dimensions describing welfare
Information to consumers
12Preference dimensions giving value
judgment
1Synthetic information attached to a product
WQ, Scoring and ranking 4 criteria
Each criterion Overall
Excellent >80 two>80, all >55
Enhanced 56-80 two>55, all>20
Acceptable 20-55 three>20, all >10
Not classified <20
The “Virtuous Bicycle”a delivery vehicle for improved farm animal welfare
Standards set byQuality Assurance
scheme
Retailer cycle Producer cycle
Proof of standards
Revise standards as
necessary
Self-assessmentof husbandry by
farmer
External monitor of
welfare
Implement action plan
Review and revise action plan
Establishcompliance
Increase awareness, trust and demand for high welfare
food
Promote standards
Demonstrateproof of
compliance
Quality control: The Producer Cycle
• Self-assessment (of resources)– Saves time, bureaucracy– Farmer knows most (if not best)
• Independent monitoring (of welfare outcomes) proven robust methods
can concentrate on major issues (need not always be exhaustive-saves time)
• Action plan– Compliance depends on perceived reward to farmer
• Reassessment– benchmarking provides incentives for improvement– Non-compliance results from failure to take effective action
The “Virtuous Bicycle”a delivery vehicle for improved farm animal welfare
Standards set byQuality Assurance
scheme
Retailer cycle Producer cycle
Proof of standards
Revise standards as
necessary
Self-assessmentof husbandry by
farmer
External monitor of
welfare
Implement action plan
Review and revise action plan
Establishcompliance
Increase awareness, trust and demand for high welfare
food
Promote standards
Demonstrateproof of
compliance
Increasing consumer demand:The 5%:95% rule?
• Promotion of QA for FAW as a positive element of added value (5%?)– e.g. Freedom Foods, Waitrose (U.K.)
• Promotion of QA for FAW as a defence against accusations of improper practice (95%?)– Free range eggs (no cruel cages)– Higher welfare = higher price contracts for UK dairy
farmers (Waitrose, Tesco - don’t be mean to the farmers)